Jurek v. Jurek’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably Unkle v. Unkle (1986), Johnson v. Johnson (1986)
85 state decisions — followed in 17 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 Heimke v. Munoz · Neal v. Neal · McFadden v. Santa Ana, Orange, & Tustin Street Railway · Fredrickson & Watson Construction Co v. Boyd · Soto v. Vandeventer
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the case at issue the serious injuries to the appellant are personal to him.... [T]he body which he brought to the marriage is certainly his separate property. The compensation for injuries to his personal well-being should belong to him as his separate property. Any expenses incurred by the community for medical care and treatment and any loss of wages resulting from the personal injury should be considered community in nature, and the community is entitled to recover for such losses. 124 Ariz. at 598 , 606 P.2d at 814 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]ll property acquired by either husband or wife during the marriage, * * * [with exceptions irrelevant here], is the community property of the husband and wife.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Except for gifts clearly made to the marital community, community property only consists of that which is acquired by onerous title, that is, by labor or industry of the spouses, or which is acquired in exchange for community property____ It must be plainly evident that a right of action for injuries to person, reputation, property, or the like, or the compensation received therefor, is not property acquired by onerous title. The labor and industry of the spouses did not bring it into being.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.