Holman v. Holman’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
13 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1408 · 10 U.S.C. § 1440 · 26 U.S.C. § 401 (Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962) · 42 U.S.C. § 407 (§ 207 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 45 U.S.C. § 231M (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974)
Relies on McCarty v. McCarty · Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo · Uninsured Employers' Fund v. Garland · Pongonis v. Pongonis · Neidlinger v. Neidlinger
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(3) Retirement allowance, disability allowance, accumulated contributions, or any other benefit under the retirement system shall not be classified as marital property pursuant to KRS 403.190(1), except to the extent permitted under KRS 403.190(4). Retirement allowance, disability allowance, accumulated contributions, or any other benefit under the retirement system shall not be considered as an economic circumstance during the division of marital property in an action for dissolution of marriage pursuant to KRS 403.190(1)(d), except to the extent permitted under KRS 403.190(4).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Brooks v. Brooks · Shown v. Shown“involves an application of the statutory framework for equitable distribution of property upon divorce and therefore constitutes a question of law....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cobane v. Cobane · Duffy v. Duffy“Pension and retirement benefits compensate individuals who live past retirement age. Such benefits constitute deferred compensation for services rendered and function as a substitute for life savings. Like any joint savings accumulated during the marriage, pension and retirement benefits are subject to distribution as marital property upon divorce. On the other hand, disability benefits do not substitute for savings but instead ‘protect against the inability of an individual to earn the salary or wages to which he or she was accustomed in the immediate past.’ Generally, therefore, disability benefits replace income which is lost before retirement. Logic dictates that disability benefits and income should be treated in the same manner since disability benefits are income replacement. Since the future income of each spouse is not classified as marital property, disability benefits which replace future income should not be classified as marital property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bailey v. Bailey
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.