Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 27 CAL2D 784 - Huber v. Huber

Huber v. Huber’s Empirical Analysis

1946

Citation profile

208
cited by 208 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
August 1993
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 187 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 208 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1993 · most notably United States v. Gilmore (1963), 41 Cal. 2d 202 - Gudelj v. Gudelj (1953)

6 federal appellate · 187 state decisions

990194619501960197019801990decided

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 23 Cal. 2d 754 - Tomaier v. Tomaier · Brison v. Brison · Andrews v. California Trust Co. · 27 Cal. 2d 131 - Sears v. Rule · 53 Cal. App. 17 - Van Camp v. Van Camp

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

  1. ““In regard to earnings, the rule is that where the husband is operating a business which is his separate property, income from such business is allocated to community or separate property in accordance with the extent to which it is allocable to the husband’s efforts or his capital investment.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “... when the issue has been made the court may determine whether the property is separate or community and quiet title in the rightful owner.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““. . . It is likewise true that parol evidence is admissible to establish the absence of an intention to make a gift of either separate or community property, although the instrument of conveyance is made by the husband to the wife alone or as joint tenant with him or is from a third person to the wife or to both as joint tenants at the husband’s direction in cases where there is no showing of fraud, mistake or undue influence. [Citing authorities.] ””
    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.