Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 741 P2D 642 - Julsen v. Julsen

Julsen v. Julsen’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink (1997), Lone Wolf v. Lone Wolf (1987)

37 state decisions

2401987199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Wanberg v. Wanberg · Van Newkirk v. Van Newkirk · Brooks v. Brooks · Carlson v. State · Burrell v. Burrell

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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"is in large part a legal determination, involving the interpretation of AS [25.24.160(4)], and applying legal principles to the facts of the case.” Wanberg, 664 P.2d at 570 . With respect to the legal analysis employed at the trial court level, review is based upon our independent judgment. Id. Whether or not the equities require invasion of premarital assets, on the other hand, lies within the broad discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “'We have repeatedly held that an equal division of [marital] property [in a divorce] is presumptively valid.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “merely because a judge fails to tally the statutory factors like runs, hits and errors in a box score.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.