Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 84 N.C. App. 353 - Harris v. Harris

84 N.C. App. 353 - Harris v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably 85 N.C. App. 484 - Hunt v. Hunt (1987), 90 N.C. App. 72 - Mishler v. Mishler (1988)

29 state decisions

1201987199020002010decided

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 White v. White · 81 N.C. App. 159 - Lawing v. Lawing · 68 N.C. App. 548 - Alexander v. Alexander · 77 N.C. App. 667 - Dorton v. Dorton · 79 N.C. App. 228 - Andrews v. Andrews

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

  1. “the trial court the authority to consider the future prospects of the parties, as well as their status at the time of the hearing”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Instead, the statute is a legislative enactment of public policy so strongly favoring the equal division of marital property that an equal division is made mandatory “unless the court determines that an equal division is not equitable.” N.C.G.S. 50-20(c). The clear intent of the legislature was that a party desiring an unequal division of marital property bear the burden of producing evidence concerning one or more of the twelve factors in the statute and the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an equal division would not be equitable. Therefore, if no evidence is admitted tending to show that an equal division would be inequitable, the trial court must divide the marital property equally. [Emphasis in original.] When evidence tending to show that an equal division of marital property would not be equitable is admitted, however, the trial court must exercise its discretion in assigning the weight each factor should receive in any given case. It must then make an equitable division of the marital property by balancing the evidence presented by the parties in light of the legislative policy which favors equal division. [Emphasis added.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “recognize, however, that the trial court may, depending upon its findings upon remand with respect to a distributive award, conclude that it is necessary to modify the manner in which it has distributed the parties' marital property and we specifically confirm that any such decision is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.”
    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.