28 Cal. 2d 243 - Crouch v. Crouch’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently June 1987 · most notably Rediker v. Rediker (1950), Baldwin v. Baldwin (1946)
9 federal appellate · 50 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Williams v. State of North Carolina · Williams v. State of North Carolina · Schneiderman v. United States · John Haddock v. Harriet Haddock
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is a well established rule that jurisdiction to grant a divorce rests upon bona fide domicil. Where neither party is domiciled within the state, no divorce can validly be granted and all proceedings, as well as the judgment, are void. Stated another way, a decree of divorce rendered in one state may be impeached and denied recognition in another upon the ground that neither of the parties had domicil at the divorce forum, and this is true notwithstanding the recital in the decree from the other state of the jurisdictional fact of domicil or residence. (See: Beale, Conflict of Laws, vol. 1, §§74.3, 111.1 and cases cited therein; Goodrich, Conflict of Laws (2nd ed.) §123; Rest., Conflict of Laws, § 111; 9 Cal.Jur. 815, 817.) This principle has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court in recent decisions (Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 [ 89 L.Ed. 1577 , 65 S.Ct. 1092 , 157 A.L.R. 1366 ]; Esenwein v. Pennsylvania, supra, [ 325 U.S. 279 ( 89 L.Ed. 1608 , 65 S.Ct. 1118 , 157 A.L.R. 1396 )]), and has been consistently followed by courts of other states. [ Citations.] ’ ’ The provisions of the Uniform Divorce Recognition Law are consistent with these principles. (Civ. Code, §§150.1 and 150.2; Kerr v. Kerr, 182 Cal.App.2d 12 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 630 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. Johnson““It is a well established rule that jurisdiction to grant a divorce rests upon bona fide domicil. Where neither party is domiciled within the state, no divorce can validly be granted and all proceedings, as well as the judgment, are void. Stated in another way, a decree of divorce rendered in one state may be impeached and denied recognition in another upon the ground that neither of the parties had domicil at the divorce forum, and this is true notwithstanding the recital in the decree from the other state of the jurisdictional fact of domicil or residence. [Citing cases.] This principle has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court in recent decisions (Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 [ 65 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed. 1577 , 157 A.L.R. 1366]; Esenwein v. Pennsylvania, supra [ 325 U.S. 279 ( 65 S.Ct. 1118, 1119 , 89 L.Ed. 1608 , 157 A.L.R. 1396 )], and has been consistently followed by courts of other states. [Citing eases.] ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Aldabe v. Aldabe
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.