Porter v. Porter’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Cameron v. Cameron (1982), Neal v. Neal (1977)
4 federal appellate · 114 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 · 48 Cal. App. 2d 762 - Falk v. Falk · Blaine v. Blaine · Laughlin v. Laughlin
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This presumption can be rebutted only by 'strong,' 'satisfactory,' 'convincing,' 'clear and cogent,' or 'nearly conclusive evidence.' In this respect it differs from most legal presumptions that are dispelled immediately upon the production of any evidence negativing the presumption. The court must be satisfied that the property really is separate before it can state that the presumption has been dispelled. As long as there is any doubt, the property acquired during coverture must be presumed to be community property.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““§ 25-211. Property acquired during marriage as community property; exceptions; disposition of personal property A. All property acquired by either husband or wife during the marriage, except that which is acquired by gift, devise or descent, or earned by the wife and her minor children while she lives separate and apart from her husband, is the community property of the husband and wife.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * commingling alone is not sufficient to stamp the whole with the community status, but only when the commingling results in confusion and to loss of identity of separate items entering into the combined fund and the lack of sufficient records or evidence from which-the court may determine which portion of the combined fund is separate and which is community * * * ””
3 later decisions 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.