Pearman v. Pearman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 state decisions

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““No single factor can be relied upon in any given case to determine whether monthly payments are in the nature of property or alimony. The agreement must be taken as a whole and consideration given as to the circumstances under which it was made and the nature and value of the property being divided and its relation to the amount of the periodic payments. (Puckett v. Puckett, 21 Cal.2d 833, 841-842 [ 136 P.2d 1 ].) If the monthly payments are in the nature of property, they may not be modified. (Puckett v. Puckett, supra, at p. 840 .) But if the payments are in the nature of alimony the court has the power to modify, whether such payments are based upon an agreement of the parties and whether or not the agreement is incorporated in the decree. (Adams v. Adams, 29 Cal.2d 621, 624-626 [ 177 P.2d 265 ]; Hough v. Hough, 26 Cal.2d 605, 612 [ 160 P.2d 15 ].)””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 126 Cal. App. 2d 238 - Van Dyke v. Van Dyke · 120 Cal. App. 2d 248 - Werner v. Werner

2. “The fact that the agreement recites it is in full settlement [as herein] and releases the husband of all further claims [a waiver clause as in the agreement before us] does not preclude the court from inquiring into and determining whether the monthly payments are `property' or `alimony.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 60 Cal. 2d 387 - DiMarco v. DiMarco