Hertz v. Hertz’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 86 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Johnson v. Johnson (1989), Ruggles v. Ruggles (1993)
2 federal appellate · 86 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Federal Communications Commission v. Home Box Office, Inc. · 103 Wis. 2d 327 - Holbrook v. Holbrook · Elsea v. Broome Furniture Co. · Getz v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of US · Hurley v. Hurley
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is a disturbing inequity in compelling a professional practitioner to pay a spouse a share of intangible assets at a judicially determined value that could not be realized by a sale or another method of liquidating value.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Mocnik v. Mocnik · Travis v. Travis“[I]f one of the parties in a divorce case remains in possession of the community residence between the date of the divorce and the date of the final judgment dividing the community assets, then there may be a form of constructive ouster, exclusion, or an equivalent act which is created as to the right of common enjoyment by the divorced spouse not in possession. See § 42-4-8, N.M.S.A. 1978. This exclusion may render the divorced spouse in possession of the community residence liable to the divorced spouse not in possession for the use and occupation of the residence between the date of the divorce and the date of the final judgment. See § 42-4-9, N.M.S.A. 1978. To hold otherwise would mean that both divorced spouses should have continued to live with each other during the eighteen month interim or that both should have abandoned the property. [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Olivas v. Olivas“Factors to be considered by a district court in determining whether an alimony award is just and proper pursuant to Section 40-4-7(B)(l), N.M.S.A.1978, include the duration of the marriage, the wife’s needs, her age, her health, the means she has available to support herself, the husband’s earning capacity, and the amount of property owned by each of the parties, (citation omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bustos v. Bustos
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.