25 Wash. App. 648 - McCoy v. Ware’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
states following
June 1984
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 44 Wash. 2d 851 - Hamlin v. Merlino · 18 Wash. App. 116 - In Re the Marriage of Harshman · 73 Wash. 2d 629 - In Re Smith's Estate · 25 Wash. 2d 98 - Pekola v. Strand
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The rule set forth in In re Marriage of Harshman, 18 Wn. App. 116 , 567 P.2d 667 (1977), provides the answer [as to who has the burden of establishing the cause of the increase in the value of the home]. Where the separate property in question is real estate on which personal services or funds of the community have been used to effectuate improvements, the resulting increase in value of the real estate is presumed to be community property to the extent that the community has a lien against the property to secure reimbursement for the increased value. This presumption, however, may be overcome by clear and satisfactory evidence that the increase is due to a cause other than community personal services or funds; i.e., the natural course of inflation irrespective of the investment of community personal services or funds. In re Marriage of Harshman, supra at 125-26.”
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.