Adams v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 155 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 164 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably 31 Cal. 4th 657 - Mejia v. Reed (2003), Barham v. Barham (1949)
3 federal appellate · 155 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 26 Cal. 2d 605 - Hough v. Hough · Puckett v. Puckett · Hill v. Hill · Sears Ettlinger v. Ettlinger · Lazar v. Superior Court
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 164 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Property settlement agreements occupy a favored position in the law of this state and are sanctioned by the Civil Code. (Hill v. Hill, 23 Cal.2d 82, 89 [ 142 P.2d 417 ]; Hensley v. Hensley, 179 Cal. 284, 287 [ 183 P. 445 ]; Civil Code sec. 158, 159) ... When the parties have finally agreed upon the division of their property, the courts are loath to disturb their agreement except for equitable consideration.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“... The contract may even provide solely for support and maintenance without reference to a division of property. These contracts, if equitable, are enforceable even though not presented to the court in a divorce action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The third category includes contracts in which the wife waives all support and maintenance, or all support and maintenance except as provided in the agreement, in consideration of receiving a more favorable division of the community property. The court cannot add a provision for alimony to such contracts without changing basically the agreement of the parties as to the division of their property. We are confronted with such a situation in the present case. Plaintiff contends that the trial court did not make a new property settlement agreement for the parties but approved the agreement except for the provision in which she waived all support and maintenance. ... The contract before the trial court in the present case was clearly one that attempted to settle the property rights of the parties. It contained a waiver of all other payments in consideration of her receipt of the major portion of the community property, and that waiver was inseparable from the remainder of the division of property. A waiver under such conditions is not void per se.”
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.