From our private database of 32,100+ case briefs...
Wood v. Wood
Supreme Court of New York
465 N.Y.S.2d 475 (1983)
Rodney Wood (plaintiff) and Sharon Wood (defendant) were married for four years. During the marriage, Sharon served as a parent and homemaker, while Rodney owned and operated his medical practice. The Woods divorced. Rodney filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking an order from the court directing that his separate property, and specifically his medical practice and any appreciation that had accumulated during the marriage, was not subject to equitable distribution. Rodney argued that Sharon never worked at his medical practice and did nothing during the marriage to increase the value of his practice.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Geiler, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 583,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 583,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 32,100 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.