Cross v. Cross’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 2010
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 Murphy v. Carron · Brueggemann v. Brueggemann · In Re the Marriage of Brewer · Marriage of Tzinberg v. Tzinberg · In Re the Marriage of Deatherage
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.
“(1) The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, ... and his ability to meet his needs independently ...; (2) The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to ... find appropriate employment; (3) The comparative earning capacity of each spouse; (4) The standard of living established during the marriage; (5) The obligations and assets, including the marital property ... and the separate property ...; (6) The duration of the marriage; (7) The age, and the physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance; (8) The ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance; (9) The conduct of the parties during the marriage; and (10) Any other relevant factors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Fox v. Fox · Faintich v. Faintich
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.