Hurst v. Hurst

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that unequal division of marital property was erroneous in part because the trial court failed to make any findings that an unequal division was appropriate
• holding that the trial court’s “clarification” of the dissolution decree to include an initially excluded asset was a substantive change not proper under Trial Rule 60(A)
• stating that all property owned by the parties, whether acquired prior to the marriage or through inheritance, is marital property

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Bizik v. Bizik
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2001-08-17· cited 35×
• Moore v. Moore
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1998-06-10· cited 31×
• Crowley v. Crowley
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1999-03-30· cited 28×
• Marriage of Trackwell v. Trackwell
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2000-12-20· cited 8×
• William C. Elliott and Mary Kay Elliot v. Dyck O'Neal, Inc., Successor in interest to Fifth Third Mortgage Company
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2015-11-13· cited 6×
• Davis v. Davis
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2006-12-18· cited 1×