Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 896 SW2D 559 - Bell v. Bell

Bell v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
3
states following
July 2009
most recently cited

1 district · 3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Byrd v. Hall · 87 Wis. 2d 662 - Prince v. Bryant · 342 Pa. Super. 72 - Lindsey v. Lindsey · Webb v. Webb

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

  1. “"[W]e find that [the wife's] interest as a beneficiary was nothing more than an expectancy. Her interest in the policies themselves was limited to their cash surrender value. Since a change in a beneficiary designation in a life insurance policy is not a conveyance or disposal of a marital asset, [the husband's] decision to designate [another person] rather than [the wife] as his beneficiary did not violate the lower court's injunction. . . ."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]t is settled in Tennessee that [the beneficiary of a life-insurance policy] has no vested right or interest in the policy but rather a mere expectancy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “`removing, selling, mortgaging, transferring, or in any other manner dissipating the property or assets of the parties'”
    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.