Laing v. Laing’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Krafick v. Krafick (1995), Bender v. Bender (2001)
61 state decisions
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
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1408 · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 5 U.S.C. § 8345
Relies on 15 Cal. 3d 838 - In Re Marriage of Brown · 78 Ill. App. 3d 653 - In Re Marriage of Hunt · 29 Cal. 3d 418 - In Re Marriage of Gillmore · Deering v. Deering · Van Loan v. Van Loan
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The division of property must fairly allocate the economic effect of divorce by being based on consideration of the following factors: (A) the length of the marriage and station in life of the parties during the marriage; (B) the age and health of the parties; (C) the earning capacity of the parties, including their educational backgrounds, training, employment skills, work experiences, length of absence from the job market, and custodial responsibilities for children during the marriage; (D) the financial condition of the parties, including the availability and cost of health insurance; (E) the conduct of the parties, including whether there has been unreasonable depletion of marital assets; (F) the desirability of awarding the family home, or the right to live in it for a reasonable period of time, to the party who has primary physical custody of children; (G) the circumstances and necessities of each party; (H) the time and manner of acquisition of the property in question; and (I) the income-producing capacity of the property and the value of the property at the time of division.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gordon v. Gordon · Gilboe v. Gilboe“[T]he contingent nature of a nonvested pension presents simply a valuation problem, not bearing on the non-employee spouse’s entitlement to a just share of the marital assets. Pension benefits are generally viewed as deferred compensation for services rendered and the employee spouse’s right thereto is a contractual right.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Lewis v. Lewis · Root v. Root“The trial court has broad discretion in fashioning a property division in a divorce action. This court reviews the trial court’s determination of what property is available for distribution under an abuse of discretion standard. If in the course of determining what property is available the trial court makes any legal determinations, such determinations are reviewable under the "independent judgment” standard. All questions of law are reviewed de novo with this court adopting the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason and policy. However, the trial court’s findings that the parties intended to treat property as marital are disturbed only if clearly erroneous. The valuation of available property is a factual determination that should be reversed only if clearly erroneous. The equitable allocation of property is reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard and will not be reversed "unless it is clearly unjust.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tanghe v. Tanghe
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.