Lundquist v. Lundquist’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Lopiano v. Lopiano (1998), Schmitz v. Schmitz (2004)
25 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 Merrill v. Merrill · Wanberg v. Wanberg · Cox v. Cox · Brooks v. Brooks · Doyle v. Doyle
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The philosophy underlying equitable distribution is that marriage is a partnership and both spouses contribute, either directly or indirectly, to the acquisition of property obtained during the marriage. If property is acquired without the joint efforts of the parties such property arguably should not be subject to division. For this reason, and because most inheritances are from family members and may have strong sentimental value, many states ... categorize inherited property as separate property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In Alaska, a tort recovery is classified according to what it is intended to re place.... When an award compensates for losses to the marital estate it is marital property. To the extent the recovery compensates for losses to a spouse's separate estate, it is his or her separate property.[ 27 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Edelman v. Edelman“punitive damages can be partially marital and partially separate, or even entirely one or the other, depending on the facts. An award of punitive damages should be apportioned in the same manner as the underlying compensatory damages award.[ 28 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Edelman v. Edelman
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.