Neely v. Neely’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 172 W. Va. 158 - LaRue v. LaRue (1983), Martin v. Martin (1988)
44 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 Armer v. Armer · Kennedy v. Kennedy · Porter v. Porter · O'Hair v. O'Hair · Nace v. Nace
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 25-318. Disposition of property; retroactivity A. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, or for legal separation, or in a proceeding for disposition of property following dissolution of the marriage by a court which previously lacked personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse or previously lacked jurisdiction to dispose of the property, the court shall assign each spouse’s sole and separate property to such spouse. It shall also divide the community, joint tenancy and other property held in common equitably, though not necessarily in kind, without regard to marital misconduct. For purposes of this section only, property acquired by either spouse outside this state shall be deemed to be community property if the property would have been community property if acquired in this state. Nothing in this section shall prevent the court from considering excessive or abnormal expenditures, destruction, concealment or fraudulent disposition of community, joint tenancy and other property held in common.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Martin v. Martin“When we come to consider the strong presumption that property purchased with community funds remains community property, even though title be taken in the name of the wife alone, we do not think the mere fact that the policies contained provisions giving the insured broad powers, created a gift from the husband to the wife, as a matter of law.... Consideration of the foregoing leads us to conclude that the policies remained community property....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Meza“full possession and control of the property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Glassel
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.