Smith v. Buss’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Long v. Knox (1956), Hodge v. Ellis (1955)
8 federal appellate · 88 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 Creamer v. Briscoe · Stiles v. Hawkins
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We agree with the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals that the recitals in the deeds from J. S. Moore and wife to Mrs. Mary Rives, above quoted, prima facie constituted the land thereby conveyed the separate property of Mrs. Rives. Each of such deeds recited that the consideration paid, and to be paid, by Mrs. Rives was ‘out of her own separate property, funds and estate, * * It is then recited in each deed that $737.50 was paid in cash and $1475.00 was to be ‘represented by Five (5) * * * notes * * *, executed by the Grantee herein * * *.’ The grantee was Mrs. Mary Rives. It thus appears that each of the deeds recited that $737.50 was paid in cash by Mrs. Rives out of her separate property and estate, and that the five notes executed alone by Mrs. Rives were also to be paid out of her separate estate. Such deeds prima facie show that at the very time Mrs. Rives acquired the land thereby conveyed, she took the entire title in her separate right, and not in community. Lusk v. Parmer, supra, [Tex.Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d 790 ,] and authorities there cited; Speer’s Law of Marital Rights in Texas, 3d Ed., p. 515, sec. 429, and authorities there cited.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Neff v. Ulmer“Generally speaking, it is the law that a bank account consisting of separate and community funds commingled in such a manner that neither can be distinguished from the other must be regarded as a community account.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.