125 Cal. App. 2d 154 - Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently July 2003 · most notably 1 Cal. 3d 467 - Kulchar v. Kulchar (1969), 51 Cal. 2d 177 - In Re Petersen (1958)
82 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Morgan v. United States · Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp. · Dohany v. Rogers · Stebbins v. Riley · Pico v. Cohn
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A parent may not by any act, conduct, or arrangement of whatever sort shift from his shoulders the legal responsibility and moral duty to support his minor child. It is an absolute, inalienable right enjoyed by the child which no form of contract between the parents, nor change of the domestic circumstances of either of them, may effect.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““That there is no deprivation of due process is clear. When the court of this state receives the papers from the initiating state the defendant is given notice, an opportunity to be heard, by deposition to examine and cross-examine the plaintiff and any witness that may have testified in the initiating state, to examine and cross-examine any witnesses that may testify in this state, to meet opposing evidence, and to oppose with evidence. Thus the requirements of due process are complied with. Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1 , 58 S.Ct. 773 , 82 L.Ed. 1129 .” (Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the supreme court (of California) was denied July 7, 1954.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The support law [URESA] is designed to enable a dependent in one state to secure money for support from a person residing in another state who is legally liable for the support of the dependent. Its purposes are to improve and extend by reciprocal legislation the enforcement of duties of support.” (Smith v. Smith (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 154, 156 [ 270 P.2d 613 ].)”
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.