Brown v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 1989 · most notably 189 Cal. App. 2d 658 - Clevenger v. Clevenger (1961), Russell v. Superior Court of Placer Cty. (1967)
26 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 46 Cal. 2d 690 - Primm v. Primm · Bowman v. Bowman · 103 Cal. App. 2d 405 - Kalmus v. Kalmus · 125 Cal. App. 2d 644 - Currin v. Currin · 84 Cal. App. 2d 141 - Loeb v. Loeb
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Trial courts can modify or amend their judgments only as prescribed by statute. (Bowman v. Bowman, 29 Cal.2d 808, 814 [ 178 P.2d 751 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ].) A final judgment can be amended nunc pro tunc only for the purpose of making the record conform to the truth, and not for the purpose of revising and changing the judgment to correct a judicial error. (McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 141 Cal.App.2d 494, 496 [ 296 P.2d 878 ].) ””
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.