In Re Cummings’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 1986
8 federal appellate · 3 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 11 U.S.C. § 110
Relies on Taylor v. Voss · 21 Cal. 2d 145 - Leupe v. Leupe · Grace Bros. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · McGuinness v. Superior Court · 17 Cal. 2d 679 - Grolemund v. Cafferata
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In sum, the interlocutory decree is merely a determination that after the lapse of a year, the parties would — if no impediments have arisen — be entitled to a decree dissolving the marital relation and disposing of the community property in the manner described in the interlocutory decree. Its provisions are not operative until the entry of the final decree * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“section 161a of the Civil Code does not change the nature of the wife's interest to a vested one so as to give her creditors the right of sequestration by attachment, execution or any other legal proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The obtaining and entry of an interlocutory decree of divorce does not sever the marital relation, and any disposition of property made thereby becomes effective only upon the entry of the final decree.””
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.