Root v. Root’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 2024
15 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 Wanberg v. Wanberg · Laing v. Laing · Moffitt v. Moffitt · Hartland v. Hartland · Carlson v. Carlson
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the best practice is for the trial court to direct the parties ... to fill the evidentiary void”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[This court has] previously held that it is the duty of the parties, not the court, to ensure that all necessaiy evidence is before the court in divorce proceedings and that a party who fails to present sufficient evidence may not later challenge the adequacy of the evidence on appeal.”) (quoting Root v. Root, 851 P.2d 67, 69 (Alaska 1993)); see also Hartland v. Hartland, 111 P.2d 636, 640 (Alaska 1989) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fortson v. Fortson“aggravated by the fact that [the party] failed to present evidence indicating the present value of these benefits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Forshee v. Forshee
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.