Ball v. Ball

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that if the husband’s benefits never vest, the wife is not entitled to receive any of his pension benefits as neither party would suffer disproportionately in relation to the entire marital estate
• holding nonvested, unvalued pension benefits are marital property subject to equitable distribution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Bowman v. Bowman
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2004-01-20· cited 35×
• Shorb v. Shorb
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2007-03-19· cited 17×
• Divine v. Robbins
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2009-07-28· cited 16×
• Blejski v. Blejski
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1997-01-13· cited 12×
• Arredondo v. SNH SE Ashley River Tenant, LLC
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2021-03-10

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• In Re Marriage of Brown
  California Supreme Court· 1976-01-16· cited 507×
• In Re Marriage of Hunt
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1979-11-05· cited 144×
• DeRevere v. DeRevere
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1971-11-18· cited 72×
• Poe v. Poe
  Court of Appeals of Kentucky· 1986-03-28· cited 41×
• In Re Marriage of Wisniewski
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1982-07-12· cited 40×
• Kneece v. Kneece
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1988-06-27· cited 25×
• Tiffault v. Tiffault
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-02-04· cited 21×
• O'Neill v. O'Neill
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1987-07-20· cited 20×
• Lott v. Claussens, Inc.
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1968-09-30· cited 9×
• Mears v. Mears
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1991-06-10· cited 9×
• Hagerman v. Hagerman
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1984-10-02· cited 7×