Erb v. Erb’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Neville v. Neville (2003), McCafferty v. McCafferty (1996)
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 73 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 11 U.S.C. § 523
Relies on Holcomb v. Holcomb · Hoyt v. Hoyt · Dreger v. Public Employees Retirement System · Wilson v. Wilson (In Re Wilson)
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When considering a fair and equitable distribution of pension or retirement benefits in a divorce, the trial court must apply its discretion based upon the circumstances of the case, the status of the parties, the nature, terms and conditions of the pension or retirement plan, and the reasonableness of the result.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is true, as Wife contends, that should Husband file a petition in bankruptcy, his obligation to pay Wife directly as part of a property settlement in a divorce might not qualify as an exception to discharge under Section 523(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code. See, e.g., In re Wilson ([Bankr.]S.D.Ohio 1993), 158 B.R. 709 , 712; Section 523(a)(5), Title 11, U.S.Code. However, Wife’s separate property interest in Husband’s pension would neither be a part of Husband’s bankruptcy estate nor be subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts. Wilson, 158 B.R. at 711 . Thus, a discharge of Husband’s obligation to pay Wife directly would not affect Wife’s ownership interest in the pension itself. Id. at 712-713 . Because Wife’s interest would not be affected by a discharge and because Husband would remain subject to the contempt powers of the domestic relations court, Wife’s interest would continue to be adequately protected.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[p]ension or retirement benefits accumulated during the course of a marriage are marital assets subject to property division in a divorce action.”
2 later decisions 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.