Hickman v. Hickman’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 2019
5 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 Thielenhaus v. Thielenhaus · Dickason v. Dickason · Stuart v. Stuart · Chapman v. Chapman
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.
“An unambiguous agreement dividing the property between the parties to a divorce cannot be modified without consent of both parties. Stuart v. Stuart, 555 P.2d 611, 615 (Okla.1976). However, when assets acquired during coverture are omitted from the court's decree providing for the division of property, even when the division of the property was reached by agreement of the parties, the property is owned by the party in which title was vested before the divorcee. Chapman v. Chapman, 692 P.2d 1869 , 1374 (Okla.1984). We see no reason to treat the debts of the parties any differently than the assets. When a debt is omitted from the divorce decree, then the liability for the debt remains unchanged.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ryan v. Ryan
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.