Gillespie v. Gillespie’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 1993
22 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 Laughlin v. Laughlin · Campbell v. Campbell · McDonald v. Lambert · Hollingsworth v. Hicks · Katson v. Katson
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is impossible to lay down hard and fast guidelines in apportioning assets between the separate estate of a conjugal partner and the community. The surrounding circumstances must be carefully considered and the ultimate answer calls into play the nicest and most profound judgment of the trial court. As was said in [Laughlin v.] Laughlin [ 49 N.M. 20, 35 , 155 P.2d 1010, 1019 ] : ‘ “Each case will depend upon its own facts; a situation often encountered by trial courts. Mathematical exactness is not expected or required, but substantial justice can be accomplished by the exercise of reason and judgment in all such cases. ” ’ “We approve the statement by de Funiak in his Principles of Community Property, Section 72, quoted with approval in Laughlin to the effect that [ 49 N.M. at 30 , 155 P.2d at 1016 ]: ‘ “ 1 * * * each case must be determined with reference to its surrounding facts and circumstances and that therefrom must be determined what amount of the income is due to personal efforts of the spouses and what is attributable to the separate property employed. Dependent upon the nature of the business and the risks involved, it must be reckoned what would be a fair return on the capital investment as well as determined what would be a fair allowance for the personal services rendered.’ ” ’ In the words of Mr. Justice McGhee, speaking for the court in Campbell v. Campbell, 62 N.M. 330 , 310 P.2d 266 (1957) a proper apportionment ‘depends on what is bes.t under all the pro”
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.