Please take a look at my answers and let me know if this is correct. If I'm not on the right track could you, please point me in the right direction to what is wrong.

Mr. Smith is a client who is involved in a bitter divorce in Family Court in Dallas, Texas. Mr. Smith and his soon to be ex-wife had agreed to split community property equally, but there is now an argument over what is considered to be community property. Mrs. Smith had accumulated a substantial amount of jewelry, which she purchased with community money, or was given to her by her spouse over the 20 years of the marriage. She is refusing to split the value of the jewelry because she insists that it is her separate property. Her attorney has requested the court to order that the jewelry in question be deemed to be Mrs. Smith's separate property and that Mr. Smith is not entitled to half of the value. Mrs. Smith's attorney has filed a brief with the court, citing cases that he believes supports the position of Mrs. Smith.

Your supervising attorney has asked that you check the citations for the court opinions included in the brief filed by Mrs. Smith's attorney. Please read the opinions on Westlaw and determine the following:

a. Whether the opinions are on point, and why or why not

b. Whether opinions are primary mandatory, primary persuasive, or non-authorities for a court in Dallas, Texas, and why or why not

c. Whether the opinions support Mrs. Smith's contention, and why or why not

Please be sure to answer all the questions above for each case listed below:

• In re Soule, 2004 WL 2314524 (E.D. La. Oct. 13, 2004)

On point opinions, non-authorities in Dallas Texas because of Louisiana jurisdiction, opinions support Mrs. Smith's contention.

2. Anonymous v. Anonymous, 66 N.Y.S.3d 235 (2017)

Not on point opinions, non-authorities for a court in Dallas Texas, opinions support Mrs. Smith's contention.

3. Ruiz v. Ruiz, 548 So.2d 699 (Fla. App. 1989)

On point opinions, non-authority because of the District Court of Appeals in Florida, does not support Mrs. Smith's contention.

4. Mauser v. Mauser, 2001 WL 822678 (Ohio Ct. App. July 20, 2001)

On point opinions, non-authority in Dallas Texas because of Ohio jurisdiction, opinions support Mrs. Smith's contention.

5. Koussis v. Koussis, 1994 WL 201856, (Tenn. Ct. App. May 25, 1994)

On point opinions, non-authority in Dallas Texas because of Tennessee jurisdiction, opinions support Mrs. Smith's contention.