Nomm v. Nomm’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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

1. “An adjudication that the court should not have restrained defendant from entering it [the home] between September 13, 1957 and March 4, 1958, the date of the decree, could now have no real consequences. The order being prohibitory in form, but mandatory in its nature, its effect would have been stayed by the appeal. (See Food Grocery Bureau v. Garfield, 18 Cal.2d 174 , 177 [ 114 P.2d 579 ]; Smith v. Smith, 18 Cal.2d 462 , 465 [ 116 P.2d 3 ].) The decree would supersede the restraining order, and defendant would not be entitled to possession now. Any determination of whether he should have been entitled to enter during the six months from September to March would be futile. The question might still have some vitality had an appeal been taken from the interlocutory decree, but no such appeal has been taken, and the time for filing the notice of appeal has now run.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 Cal. App. 2d 825 - MacKie v. MacKie