74 N.C. App. 144 - McLeod v. McLeod’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 81 N.C. App. 159 - Lawing v. Lawing (1986), Johnson v. Johnson (1986)
5 federal appellate · 75 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 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000)
Relies on White v. White · Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, Inc. · 27 Cal. 3d 808 - In Re Marriage of Lucas · 72 N.C. App. 372 - Wade v. Wade · Harper v. Harper
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Prior to Mims that provision read, ‘property acquired in exchange for separate property shall remain separate property regardless of whether the title is in the name of the husband or wife or both.’ G.S. 50-20(b)(2) (1981). Given that language, the Mims court wrote ‘it does appear . . . that in the context of a divorce and the ‘equitable distribution’ of all ‘marital property’ the Legislature has opted for a rule that where land or personalty is purchased with the ‘separate property’ of either spouse, it remains the ‘separate property’ of that spouse regardless of how the title is made.’ Mims, 305 N.C. at 53 , 286 S.E. 2d at 787 . In apparent response to this reading of the statute as it was written, the Legislature amended the separate provision to state that property acquired in exchange for separate property shall remain so regardless of title ‘and shall not be considered to be marital property unless a contrary intention is expressly stated in the conveyance.’ [emphasis in original] [citation omitted]. . . . Thus the legislature appears to have availed itself of the reasoning in Mims whereby when spouses title their real property without regard to the source of the consideration a gift will be presumed. [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a form of co-ownership with a right of survivorship created when real property is conveyed to a husband and wife and the unities of time, title, interest, and possession are observed. The estate rests upon the doctrine of unity of the person and takes its origin from the common law where husband and wife were regarded as one.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'[w]hen property titled by the entireties is acquired in exchange for separate property the conveyance itself indicates the contrary intention to preserving separate property required by the statute.”
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.