Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 90 N.Y.2d 643 - DeJesus v. DeJesus

DeJesus v. DeJesus’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
9
states following
February 2022
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Bornemann v. Bornemann (1998), Davidson v. Davidson (1998)

25 state decisions

1701997200020102020decided

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.

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

  1. ““The Trial Judge thus must first determine * * * whether and to what extent the stock plans were granted as compensation for the employee’s past services or as incentive for the employee’s future services. We recognize * * * that any list of pertinent considerations could only be illustrative and not exhaustive * * *. However, relevant factors would include whether the stock plans are offered as a bonus or as an alternative to fixed salary, whether the value or quantity of the employee’s shares is tied to future performance and whether the plan is being used to attract key personnel from other companies. “To portions of the stock plans found to be compensation for past services, a time rule should be applied to factor out any value which may be traceable to the period before the marriage, where the numerator is the time from the later of the beginning of the titled spouse’s employment with the issuing company, or the beginning of the marriage, until the date of the grant, and the denominator is the time from the beginning of the titled spouse’s employment until the date of the grant. To portions found to be granted as incentive, a second time rule should be applied to determine the marital share, that is, accretions from the time of the grant until the matrimonial action was commenced, and any further accumulations attributable to the contributions of the nontitled spouse. Here, the numerator is the period of time from the date of the grant until the end of the marriage, whic”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.