128 Cal. App. 397 - Henderson v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 1985
18 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 105 Cal. App. 770 - Wahlefeld v. Wahlefeld · 75 Cal. App. 540 - Jones v. Coulter · 37 Cal. App. 204 - Turman v. Ellison · 52 Cal. App. 720 - Martin v. Pritchard · Newlove v. Mercantile Tr. Co. of S.F.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellant relies upon her own testimony almost without corroboration to establish a parole transmutation of the Lingard ranch from separate to community property. Henderson, the only person who could testify as to whether .or not these conversations occurred, and what was said, is dead. Mrs. Henderson has a very personal and financial interest in the outcome of the controversy between herself on the one hand and the son of her deceased husband on the other. “As Mr. Justice Burnett said in the case of Turman v. Ellison, 37 Cal.App. 204, 208 , 174 P. 396 , 398: ‘Indeed, it is true that actions to enforce oral agreements claimed to have been made with persons who are dead involve a dangerous assault upon property rights, and they are often supported by false testimony, and they naturally and reasonably excite suspicion. And while they may be genuine and worthy of confirmation, they require the closest and most careful scrutiny to prevent injustice being done. Wall’s Appeal, 111 Pa. 460 , 5 A. 220 , 56 Am.Rep. 288 . They afford and carry opportunity for fraud against the estates of deceased persons and a great temptation to perjury on the part of disappointed or avaricious relatives. Hinkle v. Sage, 67 Ohio St. 256 , 65 N.E. 999 . Such considerations could not be laid out of view by the trial judge.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McDonald v. Lambert
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.