Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 Cal. App. 488 - Wallace v. Wallace

136 Cal. App. 488 - Wallace v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis

1934

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
June 1954
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 1954

23 state decisions

110193419401950decided

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 112 Cal. App. 514 - Atlass v. Atlass · 106 Cal. App. 485 - Ex Parte Weiler

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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Let us determine first the nature of the monthly payments, for if they are found to be a part of a property settlement entered into between the parties prior to the divorce it would be a complete answer to the present controversy. “That a husband and wife may alter their legal relations as to property is well established (see. 159, Civ. Code), and apparently with that in view the parties hereto attempted to mutually adjust their respective claims to certain property. Regardless of any allegation in the complaint using the word ‘alimony’, a reference to the property settlement agreement discloses they were attempting to effect a complete adjustment of their property and the benefits thereof were to be accepted in full satisfaction of support, maintenance or alimony. With that clause in the agreement it hardly seems probable that the allowance in the decree would have been by way of alimony, but rather as part of a property adjustment. This is further emphasized by the fact that the prayer of the complaint does not ask for alimony but merely that the property settlement agreement be approved, and by the further fact that the order of the court did not in form designate it as alimony and followed the agreement as to amounts and time of payment.’’”
    2 later decisions 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.