8 Va. App. 387 - Zipf v. Zipf’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably 10 Va. App. 728 - Srinivasan v. Srinivasan (1990), 14 Va. App. 558 - Gamble v. Gamble (1992)
44 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 1 Va. App. 118 - Parra v. Parra · 4 Va. App. 113 - Mitchell v. Mitchell · 2 Va. App. 130 - Papuchis v. Papuchis · 222 N.J. Super. 36 - Whitfield v. Whitfield · 4 Va. App. 132 - Artis v. Artis
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nothing herein shall be construed, however, to sanction a disproportionate division of assets in favor of one party simply because that party has been primarily responsible for the development of the marital assets. The non-monetary contributions [of each] of the part[ies], as well as the other factors specified in Code § 20-107.3(E) must be considered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The present value calculation serves two important functions. First it provides the trial judge with an informational-based figure to assist in calculating the amount of the award. In addition, the present value of a pension would be useful information for the “party against whom a monetary award is made,” who might wish immediately to “satisfy the award, in whole or in part, by conveyance of property, subject to the approval of the Court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The Court may direct payment of a percentage of pension, profit sharing or retirement benefits, whether vested or nonvested, payable in a lump sum or over a period of time and only as such benefits are payable. No such payment shall exceed fifty percent of the cash benefits actually received by the party against whom such award is made.”
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.