127 Cal. App. 294 - Jansen v. Jansen’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 1987 · most notably 23 Cal. 2d 754 - Tomaier v. Tomaier (1944), Huber v. Huber (1946)
35 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 Cavanaugh v. Rea · Alferitz v. Arrivillaga · Hamilton v. Hubbard · Salveter v. Salveter · 54 Cal. App. 589 - Steere v. Barnet
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.
“"Dispensing with any academic discussion or review of the authorities, it is now generally conceded and recognized that the courts are invested with full power to determine the status of the property of both or each of the spouses, regardless of the name of either in which title to such property stands, and the recitals of whatever transfers there may have been between the spouses regarding such property or in transfers to one or the other, are merely prima facie evidence of ownership, and raise only disputable presumptions as to whether such property is the separate or community property of the parties." 223 P.2d 500 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The contention, .... is that there is a complete lack of corroboration, and that without corroboration the facts could not be found. It will be conceded that no divorce may be granted upon the uncorroborated testimony of either party. Civ. Code, sec. 130. Corroboration is rather an elastic term, and whether or not testimony is corroborated depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case under discussion. Corroboration may be slight or it may be so compelling as to become actually direct evidence. The law has laid down no standard by which its weight or sufficiency may be gauged .... as a rule of law and appellate practice we must decline to set up what might be classed as a standard of corroborative sufficiency in the absence of a necessity therefor.” (See, also, Minnich v. Minnich, 127 Cal. App. 1 , 15 Pac. (2d) 804 ; Keller v. Keller, 132 Cal. App. 343 , 22 Pac. (2d) 798 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bess v. Bess
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.