Nichols v. Nichols’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently November 2007 · most notably Blake v. Blake (1985), Mitchell v. Mitchell (1986)
44 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 Duke City Lumber Company, Inc. v. Terrel · LeClert v. LeClert · Farmington National Bank v. Basin Plastics, Inc. · STATE, BY & THROUGH DEPT. OF HYS. v. Helehan · 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. ‘Separate property’ means: (5) property designated as separate property by a written agreement between the spouses including a deed or other written agreement concerning property held by the spouses as joint tenants ... in which the property is designated as separate property. (emphasis added). B. ‘Community property’ means property acquired by either or both spouses during marriage which is not separate property. Property acquired by a husband and wife by an instrument in writing whether as tenants in common or as joint tenants or otherwise will be presumed to be held as community property unless such property is separate property within the meaning of Subsection A of this section, (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[I]n their supplemental briefs, both parties, while not agreeing on much else, do state that they both met with the trial judge on January 19, 1981, and that at the close of their meeting the judge requested that they submit new proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. “[T]he express ... admissions of the briefs may be recognized as properly filling a hiatus in the transcript.” [Royko v. Griffith Co., 147 Cal.App.2d 770 , 306 P.2d 36, 40 (Cal.Ct.App.1957).] We therefore deem it established for the purposes of this appeal that there was a January hearing at which the trial court requested the parties to submit new findings and conclusions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Antillon“[t]he fact that the court did not state in the second judgment that the first had been vacated or withdrawn is irrelevant, especially in light of the rule that when there are two conflicting judgments rendered by a court upon the same rights of the same parties that which is later in time prevails.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ullrich v. Blanchard
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.