Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 14 Cal. 3d 150 - Ganschow v. Ganschow

14 Cal. 3d 150 - Ganschow v. Ganschow’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
3
states following
April 2000
most recently cited

56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently April 2000 · most notably Salinero v. Pon (1981), 17 Cal. 3d 181 - Wodicka v. Wodicka (1976)

56 state decisions

2501975198019902000decided

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 11 Cal. 3d 1 - D'AMICO v. Board of Medical Examiners · 5 Cal. 3d 584 - Serrano v. Priest · 8 Cal. 3d 855 - Brown v. Merlo · 2 Cal. 3d 513 - In Re Ricky H. · 80 Wash. 2d 736 - Baker v. Baker

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

  1. ““It has come to the attention of the Legislature since passage of A.B. 2887 (now Chapter 1748 of the Statutes of 1971) that there were and are thousands of court orders outstanding in this state referring to ‘age of majority’ or to the ages of 19, 20, or 21. It is now apparent that great confusion will be caused within the judicial system and among California citizens unless it is made clear that all outstanding court orders remain unamended and unaffected by Chapter 1748 of the Statutes of 1971 and to further make clear that these court orders may be amended to reflect the new age of majority where such amendment is proper in the discretion of the courts under California law or by the terms of the outstanding court orders. Likewise, it is thought prudent to expressly indicate the intention of the Legislature that any instrument outstanding on the effective date of the new law may be amended if otherwise permissible or not prohibited by the law or its own terms.””
    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.