Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 140 TEX 38 - Taylor v. Catalon

Taylor v. Catalon’s Empirical Analysis

1942

Citation profile

120
cited by 120 later decisions
5
states following
September 1997
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 110 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently September 1997 · most notably Busby v. Busby (1970), Cameron v. Cameron (1982)

8 federal appellate · 110 state decisions

330194219501960197019801990decided

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 Kirkwood v. Domnau · Connor v. City of Paris · Austin v. Hall · May v. Slade · 44 Tex. Civ. App. 105 - Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. v. Skeeter Bros.

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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Where a husband and wife, owning community property, are divorced without the court in its decree having made any division of such property in the divorce decree, they become tenants in common in the property or joint owners thereof, just as if they had never been married.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals holds that, because there is no statement of facts in this record, it can be presumed that the former husband assigned his interest in this cause of action to the plaintiff. No such assignment was pleaded. We cannot sustain this holding. It is true that it is the general rule that in the absence of a statement of facts it will be presumed that the evidence supports the judgment; but such general rule is not applicable where the judgment for the plaintiff shows upon its face that it is not authorized by the petition, but is directly contradictory thereof.””
    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.