Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 762 NE2D 1234 - Vadas v. Vadas

Vadas v. Vadas’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
July 2009
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 1034

Relies on 176 Ind. App. 344 - Lawshe v. Glen Park Lbr. Co., Inc. · In the Matter of Murray · 153 Ind. App. 149 - Neill v. Ridner · Kerfoot v. Kessener · Levin v. Levin

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

  1. “... the dissolution court cannot delegate or leave to a nonparty the power to decide whether the parties to the marriage have a present vested interest in the real estate and the extent of that interest, if any. It is axiomatic that a divorcee decree does not affect the rights of nonparties. A party to a divorcee who claims that the marital estate includes an equitable interest in real property titled in a non-party should move to join the nonparty and to have the issue determined within the divorcee proceedings. Unless the nonparty is joined, the dissolution court is powerless to adjudicate with certainty the extent of the marital property interest in the real estate, and any such determination is illusory. The failure to join a nonparty in whose absence complete relief cannot be accorded the parties to the marriage also runs counter to the statutory mandate that the dissolution court "shall divide" the marital property. Still, while joinder may be necessary to adjudicate the rights of the parties, joinder alone will not convert the property interest elaimed into a present vested interest or bring it into the marital estate. The dissent contends that the parties have waived any error arising from their failure to join Wife's parents as necessary parties. However, reliance on the waiver doctrine does not resolve this case. Just as joinder alone does not convert the property interest claimed into a present vested interest or bring it into the marital estate, neither does the m”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[the holding of Dall promotes predictability, consistency and efficiency by excluding 'remote and speculative' interests from the marital estate”
    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.