Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 801 SW2D 728 - May v. May

May v. May’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
September 2006
most recently cited

38 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 414 (§ 1015 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)

Relies on Commissioner v. Engle · Hoffmann v. Hoffmann · Dardick v. Dardick · Kuchta v. Kuchta · Ware v. Ware

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

  1. “Petitioner lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to her, to provide for her reasonable needs. * # # * * * Petitioner is able to support herself through appropriate employment. * * * * * * Petitioner is presently earning $7.00 per hour for forty hours per week. For merly, she earned $9.00 per hour and worked part-time about twenty hours per week. She worked part-time for a Dr. Cunningham from 1979 until she was discharged in October 1990, and Petitioner had refused full-time employment from Dr. Cunningham in the past. Respondent did not request Petitioner to stay home and not seek gainful employment. The Parties youngest child is currently eighteen years of age, and, therefore, Petitioner has not needed to stay home with minor children for the last eleven or twelve years. Petitioner has a B.S. degree, and is capable of employment paying much more than her current salary. There is no medical reason that Petitioner cannot work on a full-time basis.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The court’s order as it affects distribution of marital property shall be a final order not subject to modification; provided, however, that orders intended to be qualified domestic relations orders [QDROs] affecting pension, profit sharing and stock bonus plans pursuant to the U.S. Internal Revenue Code shall be modifiable only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““(1) The economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family home ... to the spouse having custody of any children; "(2) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital property including the contribution of a spouse as a homemaker; "(3) The value of the nonmarital property set apart to each spouse; "(4) The conduct of the parties during the marriage....””
    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.