{
  "id": 2873716,
  "name": "Ginger HODGE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James P. HODGE, Respondent-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hodge v. Hodge",
  "decision_date": "1977-02-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 11027",
  "first_page": "53",
  "last_page": "54",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "90 N.M. 53"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "559 P.2d 841"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 123,
    "char_count": 1385,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.813,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.355587852321291e-08,
      "percentile": 0.33161558827264825
    },
    "sha256": "74061addad6d9674e6f3c70bb4807cada928a804d134580c899fb58a4124ab94",
    "simhash": "1:ddd244dc3a8effe7",
    "word_count": 215
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:48.706767+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SOSA, J., and RICHARD B. TRAUB, District Judge, concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Ginger HODGE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James P. HODGE, Respondent-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nMcMANUS, Justice.\nAppellant and appellee were married on December 19,1970 and subsequently obtained a divorce. Appellant claims that the trial court erred in the division of the community property by determining that the residence of the parties was community property and not his sole and separate property. Although there is conflicting evidence in the record, there is substantial evidence to support the trial court\u2019s determination. We therefore affirm this portion of the judgment.\nThe trial court also made a division of the personal property belonging to the community. The court awarded all of the community property to petitioner and all of the community property to respondent. This is clearly error. There are other conflicting provisions in the judgment of the court, therefore, we remand this portion of the judgment to the court to reconsider the disposition of the personal property to comply with the evidence and to make a proper division of these items.\nEach party shall bear his own costs, including attorney fees.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nSOSA, J., and RICHARD B. TRAUB, District Judge, concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McMANUS, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. Gene Samberson, Heidel, Samberson, Gallini & Williams, Lovington, for appellant.",
      "Bruce A. Larsen, Lovington, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "559 P.2d 841\nGinger HODGE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James P. HODGE, Respondent-Appellant.\nNo. 11027.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nFeb. 8, 1977.\nC. Gene Samberson, Heidel, Samberson, Gallini & Williams, Lovington, for appellant.\nBruce A. Larsen, Lovington, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0053-01",
  "first_page_order": 89,
  "last_page_order": 90
}