Summers v. E’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “Our reading of California law leads to the conclusion that the transmutation requisites had no relevance to the conveyance in this case. There simply was no interspousal transaction requiring satisfaction of statutory formalities____ Applying California law, we conclude that a third party conveyed joint tenancy interests to Eugene and Ann Marie Summers, a transaction to which the transmutation statute does not apply. The third-party deed specifying the joint tenancy character of the property rebutted the community property presumption, and rendered California’s transmutation statute inapplicable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Obedian

2. “[Vjirtually any credible evidence may be used to overcome [the general community property presumption], including ... showing an agreement or clear understanding between parties regarding ownership status ... For example, spouses can indicate their intent with respect to the character of the property initially by specifying the form of title in which it is held, or spouses can later transmute the character of the property as between each other.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Obedian

3. “'there is a general presumption that property acquired during marriage by either spouse other than by gift or inheritance is community property unless traceable to a separate property source'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2010 T.C. Memo. 178 - Ranuio v. Comm'r