8 Haw. App. 415 - Bennett v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Gussin v. Gussin (1992), In the Interest of Doe (1994)
30 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 Cassiday v. Cassiday · Myers v. Myers · 7 Haw. App. 377 - Malek v. Malek · 4 Haw. App. 513 - Almeida v. Almeida · 7 Haw. App. 11 - Woodworth v. Woodworth
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under [the abuse of discretion] standard of review, the appellate court is not authorized to disturb the family court’s decision unless (1) the family court disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant; (2) the family court failed to exercise its equitable discretion; or (3) the family court’s decision clearly exceeds the bounds of reason.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dring v. Dring · Lapeter v. LaPeter“[i]f different family court judges commence deciding in what proportion to equitably divide the value of the property from different starting points, which could range from a 100-0 split to a 0-100 split, then their awards will be equally diverse.4 There will be no uniformity, stability, clarity, or predictability. The ultimate decision will depend less on the facts and the law and more on who is the judge assigned to hear and decide the case.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Upon granting a divorce ... the court may make such further orders as shall appear just and equitable (1) compelling the parties or either of them to provide for the support, maintenance, and education of the children of the parties; (2) compelling either party to provide for the support and maintenance of the other party; (3) finally dividing and distributing the estate of the parties, real, personal, or mixed, whether community, joint, or separate. ... In making such further orders, the court shall take into consideration: the respective merits of the parties, the relative abilities of the parties, the condition in which each party will he left by the divorce, the burdens imposed upon either party for the benefit of the children of the parties, and all other circumstances of the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tougas v. Tougas · Gussin v. Gussin
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.