22 Cal. App. 3d 82 - Brown v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Beverly has appealed the April order, contending the trial court was without jurisdiction to make the order. She argues that the original judgment contained no provision for enforcement of the order directing division of the New Horizons stock, and therefore the April order either modified the original judgment or amounted to a new judgment. Since the original judgment had become final it could not be modified; and since a new trial had not been granted a new judgment could not be entered. “We do not accept Beverly’s interpretation of the trial court’s original judgment. The judgment of the trial court did not merely state the respective rights of the parties but it mandated an affirmative division of the stock. In its April order the trial court did not modify its judgment or create a new judgment, but it merely implemented the existing order to divide the stock. “Every court has power to compel obedience to its judgments and orders (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128, subd. 4, 177), and a court of equity retains inherent jurisdiction to oversee and enforce execution of its decrees. (Witkin, Cal. Procedure, (2d ed. 1970) Judgments, § 79, p. 3240; see, e.g. Lesser & Son v. Seymour, 35 Cal.2d 494, 500 [ 218 P.2d 536 ]; Green Trees Enterprises v. Palm Springs Alpine Estates, 66 Cal.2d 782, 788 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 427 P.2d 805 ]; Vallelunga v. Gomes, 102 Cal.App.2d 374, 382 [ 227 P.2d 550 ].)” (22 Cal.App.3d at pp. 83-84.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 63 Cal. App. 3d 156 - Bonner v. Superior Court