Miller v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 2003 · most notably Grode v. Grode (1996), Holt v. Holt (1970)
26 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 Kressly v. Kressly · Baron v. Baron · Meyer v. Meyer · Arneson v. Baker · Plageman v. Plageman
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our standard of review of a trial court's division of marital property is well established. "This court will not disturb a division of property unless it clearly appears the trial court abused its discretion." While this discretion is broad, it is not uncontrolled and must be soundly and substantially based on the evidence ... This Court has consistently recognized the principal factors to be considered in making an equitable property division as: (1) the duration of the marriage; (2) the value of the property; (3) the age of the parties; (4) the health of the parties; (5) the parties' competency to earn a living; (6) the contribution of each party to the accumulation of the property; and (7) the income-producing capacity of the parties' assets.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Geraets v. Geraets““The duration of the marriage, the value of the property of each, their ages, their health and competency to earn, the contribution of each to the accumulation of the property and the faults and circum stances leading up to the divorce. * * * Although the divorce is granted for an offense of the husband yet the acts of both husband and wife leading up to the divorce must be considered by the court in the making of an award to the wife.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Swenson v. Swenson““On oral argument he indicated that he had no binding agreement with her for additional attorneys fees. If that was the case, then his filing of the notice of lien was not authorized under SDC 1960 Supp. 32.1205(4). A valid contract for fees, either express or implied, between the attorney and his client is necessary for the existence of a lien. 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law, § 281.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morfeld v. Andrews
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.