O'Brien v. O'Brien’s Empirical Analysis
1889
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 1972 · most notably Bowman v. Bowman (1947), Brownell v. Superior Court of Yolo Cty. (1910)
36 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 Kamp v. . Kamp · Howell v. Howell · In re the Estate of Cook · Egan v. Egan · Smith v. Taylor
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Nothing further appears until on February 18, 1897, when the court made an order amending the decree of July 25, 1895, nunc pro tunc, by inserting at the end thereof the following: ‘It is ordered that the question of alimony and counsel fees be reserved for further consideration,’ on the ground that the omission of this reservation ‘was the result of clerical misprision and error, and that the amendment thereof would be in furtherance of justice.’ The appeal is from this order. . . . The principal .question is whether the court had the power to amend the judgment. It was said in Egan v. Egan, 90 Cal. 21 [ 27 Pac. 24 ] : ‘ Courts have the power at all times to allow amendments to judgments for the purpose of having the judgment as entered express that which was rendered, so that the record will contain the actual decision of the court. Where the clerk fails to enter judgment as it is pronounced, the court has always the power to correct the matter and order the proper entry to be made. Clerical misprisions can be corrected at any time by an order of the court, but judicial errors can be remedied only through a motion for a new trial, or on appeal. ’ (See, also, First Nat. Bank v. Dusy, 110 Cal. 69 [ 42 Pac. 476 ]; Byrne v. Hoag, 116 Cal. 1 [ 47 Pac. 775 ].) We think from the evidence upon which the order here in question was made it clearly appears that the decree entered July 25th, as signed by the judge, was his last direction to the clerk and was the decision in the case, ”
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.