Katson v. Katson’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently May 1993 · most notably Porter v. Porter (1948), Vallone v. Vallone (1982)
44 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
Relies on Pereira v. Pereira · 53 Cal. App. 17 - Van Camp v. Van Camp · Guye v. Guye · McDonald v. Lambert · 127 Cal. App. 80 - Estate of McCarthy
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the absence of other definite proof of the value of appellant’s services to the partnership and corporation, the salary he was paid is assumed to be their value.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““We start with the finding of the court that appellant was the owner of a half-interest in the Court Cafe at the time he married appellee. This therefore was his separate property; and the rents, issues and profits thereof were his separate property. Appellant’s right in his separate property is just as sacred as is the right of the parties in their community property. State v. Sailors, 180 Wash. 269 , 39 P.2d 397 . “The burden of proof was upon the appellant to establish his separate title. But when its separate character was established, it maintains that character until the contrary has been made to- appear by direct and positive evidence. Guye v. Guye, 63 Wash. 340 , 115 P. 731 , 37 L.R.A. N.S., 186; Jacobs v. Hoitt, et ux., 119 Wash. 283 , 205 P. 414 . “The only finding of the court upon which his decree could be justified is No. XII, a part of which is as follows: ‘ “The property, both before and after the change to a corporation, was intermingled with the fruits of the community effort so that its identity was lost and could not be traced and identified as a separate property or estate of plaintiff.” ’ “This finding is bottomed upon the fact that appellant was the manager of the partnership and corporation; and that the community was entitled to the value of appellant’s services and talent, and that they went into the business and thus became so commingled with appellant’s separate property that the two cannot be separated. The finding that there was such commingling o”
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.