Roos v. Roos’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Sousa v. Sousa (2016), State v. Taylor (2005)
34 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 Amodio v. Amodio · Jewett v. Jewett · Schmidt v. Schmidt · Clement v. Clement · Roberts v. Roberts
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[O]ur statutes give the court the authority to dispose of and to distribute the marital estate in a dissolution proceeding. See General Statutes § 46b-66 (a) (authority to incorporate separation agreement dealing with disposition of property); General Statutes § 46b-81 (authority to assign property and to allocate liabilities and debts of parties). Additionally, [General Statutes] § 46b-1 gives the court the jurisdiction to entertain, as family matters, all matters affecting or involving: (1) [d]issolution of marriage ... and (17) all such other matters within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court concerning children or family relations as may be determined by the judges of said court. "[I]t is equally well settled ... that .... [t]he court's authority to transfer property appurtenant to a dissolution proceeding rests on § 46b-81. 7 ... Accordingly, the court's authority to divide the personal property of the parties, pursuant to § 46b-81, must be exercised, if at all, at the time that it renders judgment dissolving the marriage.... A court, therefore, does not have the authority to modify the division of property once the dissolution becomes final.... "Although the court does not have the authority to modify a property assignment, 8 a court, after distributing property, which includes assigning the debts and liabilities of the parties, does have the authority to issue postjudgment orders effectuating its judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This court has explained the difference between postjudgment orders that modify a judgment rather than effectuate it. A modification is [a] change; an alteration or amendment which introduces new elements into the details, or cancels some of them, but leaves the general purpose and effect of the subject-matter intact.... In contrast, an order effectuating an existing judgment allows the court to protect the integrity of its original ruling by ensuring the parties' timely compliance therewith.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[I]t is equally well settled ... that .... [t]he court's authority to transfer property appurtenant to a dissolution proceeding rests on § 46b-81. 7 ... Accordingly, the court's authority to divide the personal property of the parties, pursuant to § 46b-81, must be exercised, if at all, at the time that it renders judgment dissolving the marriage.... A court, therefore, does not have the authority to modify the division of property once the dissolution becomes final....”
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.