Dowd v. Dowd’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 1975 · most notably 41 Cal. 2d 202 - Gudelj v. Gudelj (1953), 135 Cal. App. 2d 52 - Jones v. Jones (1955)
34 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 Barham v. Barham · 76 Cal. App. 2d 119 - Wilson v. Wilson · Arnold v. Arnold · 18 Cal. 2d 445 - Keener v. Keener · Ungemach v. Ungemach
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . Mrs. Quinn’s testimony as to the results of blows and her statement that she had seen the defendant while in a state of intoxication is some corroboration, though slight. “The existence of corroboration of material facts given in evidence by the respondent is, of course, a question of fact. The sufficiency of the corroboration should be determined in the light of the purpose of the requirement for corroboration, the prevention of collusion. That, too, presents a question of fact. ‘The principal object of the corroboration rule is to prevent collusion between the parties, and where it is clear from the evidence in a contested action that there is no col- lusion, the court is justified in granting the decree upon evidence which is only slightly corroborative if otherwise the court is satisfied that the prevailing party is entitled to a decree. ’ (Tompkins v. Tompkins, 83 Cal.App.2d 71, 76 [ 187 P.2d 840 ].)””
1 later decision 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.