774 So. 2d 492 - Redd v. Redd’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
June 2011
most recently cited
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 639 So. 2d 921 - Ferguson v. Ferguson · 639 So. 2d 909 - Hemsley v. Hemsley · 563 So. 2d 594 - Bell v. Parker · Hankins v. Hankins · 641 So. 2d 1133 - Parker v. Parker
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“reconsider the distribution of marital assets to Mary Lu in light of the valuation error, keeping in mind the guidelines set forth in Ferguson. We do not address whether the chancellor’s distribution to Mary Lu was equitable since we do not yet know what portion of the discrepancy in the valuation the chancellor will award on remand. We note, however, in light of the highly deferential standard of review, that twenty-three percent of the total estate, standing alone, is not grounds for reversal. This is especially true since the assets awarded to Mary Lu were of the type that would be easy to liquidate, while Gordon received ongoing business concerns together with total responsibility for the Labilities attached thereto.”
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.