Hughes v. Hughes’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2001 · most notably Cameron v. Cameron (1982), Copeland v. Copeland (1978)
2 district · 36 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 Addison v. Addison · Strauss v. Strauss · Schantz v. Schantz · Tourette v. Tourette · Michelson v. Michelson
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he wife, in many common law states .. ., has inchoate equitable rights to her husband’s separate property where she has made contributions to preserving and bettering that property, whereas in a typical community property state she has no such rights since she has community property rights instead.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The reasonableness of community ownership of marital property has been recognized by courts in non-community property states. It has been rightfully held that, viewed solely as a matter of economy, the labor, pain, and drudgery required of the mother in sustaining the home, giving birth to and rearing the children will often more than offset the contribution of the father to the family budget. In Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23 , 3 So.2d 727, 728 (1941) the court wistfully pointed out: In the southwest, where community property is recognized, the husband and wife share equally in all property accumulated during coverture. There is a perfectly sound basis for this rule and it will be applied in this State when the circumstances warrant. * * ‡ * * * Under community property law no distinction is made between husband and wife in respect to the right each has in the community property. The husband receives no higher or better title than does the wife. The plain public policy that this law expresses is that the wife shall have equal rights and equal dignity and shall be an equal benefactor in the matrimonial gain. “It is altogether fitting and proper that woman should be thus esteemed by the law in fixing her status if she is to be considered in fact as well as in theory an essential factor in the economy of the marital community.” La Tourette v. La Tourette, 15 Ariz. 200 , 137 P. 426, 428 (1914).”
2 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.