Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 N.M. 242 - Conley v. Quinn

Conley v. Quinn’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
September 2012
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably Estate of Fletcher v. Jackson (1980), Nichols v. Nichols (1982)

26 state decisions

1001959196019701980199020002010decided

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 Laughlin v. Laughlin · Campbell v. Campbell · In Re White's Estate · Katson v. Katson · McElyea v. McElyea

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.

  1. ““ * * * These small proceeds were community property and, as appellant contends, the general rule is to the effect that when separate property has been so intermingled with community property that the separate property cannot be traced or identified, it falls under the presumption of community property. Stroope v. Potter, 48 N.M. 404 , 151 P.2d 748 ; Campbell v. Campbell, supra; [ 62 N.M. 330 , 310 P.2d 266 ] Wood, The Community Property Law of New Mexico, p. 38 (1954). “But when there is a commingling of a negligible amount of community property with a large amount of separate property so that the separate property can no longer be identified, it would be most inequitable to follow the above-mentioned rule. There is language in the case of Stroope v. Potter, supra, which recognizes that the relative amounts of separate property and community property which make up the commingled total is an important factor.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The Austin tract was acquired some four or five months after the marriage of A. J. Conley to appellant. It clearly appears that Mr. Conley was not gainfully employed in a trade, profession, or otherwise, not an unusual fact in view of his advanced age. There is simply no evidence to indicate that during this four-month period any community property was acquired. It necessarily follows that the down payment came from the separate funds of A. J. Conley. Appellant recognizes that this tract was paid off by 1948 with a part of the proceeds from the sale of the school section. We have already determined that the school section lease was the separate property of A. J. Conley. And property acquired after marriage in exchange for or with the proceeds from property owned before marriage remains separate property. * * *””
    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.