Limbaugh v. Limbaugh’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
23 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1408 · 10 U.S.C. § 1448 · 10 U.S.C. § 1450
Relies on Mansell v. Mansell · Wichita Falls & Oklahoma Railway Co. v. Pepper · Murff v. Murff · Cockerham v. Cockerham · Taggart v. Taggart
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“• findings of fact are required when “material” factual disputes exist; and • factual disputes are “material” when they impact ultimate or controlling issues, which are those issues that have a direct effect on the judgment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The trial court does not abuse its discretion if there is some evidence of a substantive and probative character to support the decision or if reasonable minds could differ as to the result. Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we do not disturb the trial court’s decision to award spousal maintenance. Deciding what the minimum reasonable needs are for a particular individual is a fact-specific determination that should be made by the trial court on a case-by-case basis. (Citations omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stone v. Stone“(1) seeking suitable employment; or (2) developing the necessary skills to become self-supporting during a period of separation and during the time the suit for dissolution of the marriage is pending.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.