George F. Collins, Jr. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 1986 · most notably Thomas v. Thomas (1970), Palmer v. Commissioner (1974)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 1001
Relies on United States v. Davis · Tobin v. Tobin · Davis v. Davis · Pulliam v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Hill v. Hill
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[It] appears that the division of jointly acquired property pursuant to a divorce decree in Oklahoma is in many instances in direct recognition of the wife's right to a share in the property.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Colorado court in the divorce action noted that the parties had been married thirty years, that there were no children, and held that the petitioner had a duty to make provision for his wife’s support. Under Colorado law the wife’s rights during the marriage do not vest in her an ownership of any part of the husband’s property. Thus the liability of the husband for support of his wife is more in the nature of a personal obligation. The right of dower does not exist in Colorado, and a husband who has title to the property may convey it without the consent of the wife. It appears that the only inchoate right of any consequence the wife has in Colorado is, if she survives her husband, she may reject provisions he makes for her in his will and take instead one-half of his estate. In this instance the wife performed the usumI duties of a housewife, and performed no other tasks to specifically assist in the accumulation of property, and brought no property into the marriage. “The divorce court acted under the Colorado statute which permitted it to make such provision for payment of alimony and maintainance of the wife ‘as may be reasonable,’ and to require security for its payment, or to enforce payment, ‘or may decree a division of property.’ 3 Colo.Rev.Stat.1953 Ann. § 46-1-5. The divorce court recited the several factors it took into consideration, including the financial condition of the parties, the duty of the husband to support and maintain the wife, whether the wife br”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As to such property, whether real or personal, as shall have been acquired by the parties jointly during their marriage, whether title thereto be in either or both of said parties, the court shall make such division between the parties respectively as may appear just and reasonable, by a division of the property in kind, or by setting the same apart to one of the parties, and requiring the other thereof to pay such sum as may be just and proper to effect a fair and just division thereof. [Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, sec. 1278 (West 1961).]”
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.