Storm v. Storm’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably Rubin v. Rubin (1987), 19 Mass. App. Ct. 364 - Davidson v. Davidson (1985)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 27 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 17 Cal. 2d 775 - French v. French · LeClert v. LeClert · Porter v. Porter · Hill v. Hill · Fox v. Fox
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"With respect to future property, we think the rule must be, when a court divides property incidental to the granting of a divorce, the court is limited by the amount of property in its hands for division and a mere expectancy is not subject to division. Hill v. Hill, 82 Cal.App.2d 682 , 187 P.2d 28, 36 ."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * With respect to future property, we think the rule must be that, when a court divides property incidental to the granting of a divorce, the court is limited by the amount of property in its hands for division and a mere expectancy is not subject to division. Hill v. Hill, 82 Cal.App.2d 682 , 187 P.2d 28, 36 [1947]. # * * # # * “It would not be ‘just and equitable’ to consider such property a part of the marital estate and in the hands of the court for disposition. “In speaking of future property, we are referring to a prospective expectancy of an estate which may come into being in the future as distinguished from future benefits to be derived from an estate already in existence. Courts have frequently distinguished between assets earned during coverture and those to be acquired in the future. “For example, in French v. French, 17 Cal.2d 775 , 112 P.2d 235, 236-237 , 134 A.L.R. 366 [1941], it was held pay which the husband would receive in the future as a member of the Fleet Reserve of the Navy for future services was not a ‘pension’ and was not subject to division. On the other hand, pay received up to the dissolution of the marriage was community property and subject to division. “It was recognized in Morris v. Morris, 69 Wash.2d 506 , 419 P.2d 129, 130-131 [1966]; and in LeClert v. LeClert, 80 N.M. 235 , 453 P.2d 755, 756 [1969], that only that portion of military and naval retirement pay earned ‘during coverture’ was community property and subject to division upon”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In granting a divorce, the court shall make such disposition of the property of the parties as appears just and equitable, having regard for the respective merits of the parties and the condition in which they will be left by the divorce, the party through whom the property was acquired and the burdens imposed upon the property for the benefit of either party and children. The court may decree to either party reasonable alimony out of the estate of the other having regard for the other’s ability and may order so much of the other’s real estate or the rents and profits thereof as is necessary be assigned and set out to either party for life, or may decree a specific sum be paid by either party.” (Emphasis added.)”
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.