Ebbert v. Ebbert’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2019
17 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
Relies on Cooper v. Cooper · Hutchison v. Hutchison · Smith v. Smith · Kallas v. Kallas · Pilcher v. State, Department of Social Services
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[dJetermining and assigning values to marital property is a matter for the trial court, and this Court will not disturb those determinations absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]f our review of custody determinations is to be anything more than a superficial exercise of judicial power, the record on review must contain written findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial judge which specifically set forth the reasons, based on those numerous factors which must be weighed in determining the "best interests of the child," and which support the custody decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roberts v. Roberts“Plaintiff argues the wealth of defendant's parents, who made large gifts of money to defendant during the marriage, should have been considered by the trial court. Such a consideration would be tantamount to imputing the wealth and income of her parents to defendant, and thereby imposing a duty of child support on the grandparents.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.