Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 Ark. App. 17 - Powell v. Powell

82 Ark. App. 17 - Powell v. Powell’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably Kuchmas v. Kuchmas (2006), 2009 Ark. App. 208 - Evtimov v. Milanova (2009)

27 state decisions

180200320102020decided

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 McKay v. McKay · Box v. Box · Layman v. Layman · 71 Ark. App. 33 - Jablonski v. Jablonski · 70 Ark. App. 240 - Holaway v. Holaway

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

  1. “[i]t is true that there is a presumption that an increase in the value of nonmari-tal property resulting from the time, efforts, and skill of a spouse is regarded as a marital asset. However, a mere reduction in a single item of indebtedness is not the same thing as an increase in the overall value of the property, which would require evidence of the fair-market value of the farm both before and after the marriage. There is evidence in the present case regarding the value of the farm at the time of the divorce, but we find nothing in the record that would allow the trial judge to determine the premarital value of the farm. Without evidence of the before- and-after value of the property to show the existence and extent of any increase in the value of the nonmarital property, any reduction in debt on nonmarital property is not considered to be marital property to be divided equally; instead, the non-owning spouse is simply entitled to have the martial contribution considered in balancing the equities involved in the property division.”
    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.