Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently June 1996 · most notably Vibert v. Berger (1966), 51 Cal. App. 3d 590 - Weiss v. Marcus (1975)
48 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 Monarco v. Lo Greco · Owens v. McNally · Morrison v. Land · De Mattos v. McGovern · 99 Cal. App. 2d 675 - Walker v. Calloway
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Normally oral agreements to devise or bequeath any property or to make any provision for any person by will are unenforceable under the statute of frauds in the absence of a written memorandum thereof. (Civ. Code § 1624, subd. 6; Code Civ. Proc., § 1973, subd. 6.) However, under special circumstances which cause an estoppel to assert the statute of frauds, quasi-specific enforcement of such an oral contract will be permitted on an equitable basis. Appellant concedes that ‘To enforce an oral contract to bequeath or devise property in equity by quasi-specific performance, it must he shown that the contract is definite and certain, . . (Emphasis added.) (See Parker v. Solomon, 171 Cal.App. 2d 125 [ 340 P.2d 353 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Since no appeal lies from an order sustaining demurrer [citing a case], we interpret the notice of appeal as intended to take an appeal from the judgment as that is what the parties have assumed.””
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.