Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2006 OKCIVAPP 112 - Bartlett v. Bartlett

Bartlett v. Bartlett’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
3
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 2022

10 state decisions

40200620102020decided

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 Sutliff v. Sutliff · 85 Ill. 2d 217 - In Re Marriage of Rogers · McLean v. McLean · Butler v. Butler · 215 Ill. App. 3d 763 - In Re Marriage of Davis

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

  1. “Generally, if one spouse has caused his or her separate property to be transferred to both spouses jointly, mere self-serving testimony that it was not intended as a gift is entitled to little weight.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Whether the property remains the separate property of the spouse to whom it was conveyed, depends on how the spouses treat the property. If they jointly use and manage the property, then it may be considered 'jointly acquired.’ See, Harden v. Harden, 182 Okla. 364 , 77 P.2d 721 (1938). The controlling facts in such cases are the time of the conveyance in relation to the separation of the spouses, and the completeness of their separation, especially in regard to their dealings concerning the conveyed property.”); Bartlett v. Bartlett, 144 P.3d 173, 178 (Okla.Civ.App.2006) (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The most commonly stated reason to negate donative intent is that the conveyance into joint title was made for estate planning purposes, to avoid probate taxes. In many states, this reason has been held simply insufficient, because the party actually intended to transfer legal title.”
    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.