32 Cal. 2d 13 - Jorgensen v. Jorgensen’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 197 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 230 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably 58 Cal. 2d 601 - Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., Ltd. (1962), 18 Cal. 4th 1 - Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998)
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 197 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 Olivera v. Grace · Brown v. Brown · Bacon v. Bacon · Caldwell v. Taylor · 20 Cal. 2d 393 - Westphal v. Westphal
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 230 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This policy must be considered together with the policy that a party shall not be deprived of a fair adversary proceeding in which fully to present his case.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he terms `intrinsic' and `extrinsic' fraud or mistake ... do not constitute, however, a simple and infallible formula ... [Citations.] It is necessary to examine the facts in the light of the policy that a party who failed to assemble all his evidence at the trial should not be privileged to relitigate a case, as well as the policy permitting a party to seek relief from a judgment entered in a proceeding in which he was deprived of a fair opportunity fully to present his case. [¶] The latter policy applies when a party's adversary, in violation of a duty arising from a trust or confidential relation, has concealed from him facts essential to the protection of his rights, even though such facts concerned issues involved in the case in which the judgment was entered.... [¶] The same principle also applies in the cases concerning equitable relief from judgments approving and adopting property settlement agreements....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘ * * * As the manager of the community property the husband oc cupies a position of trust (Civ.Code, secs. 172-173, 158), which is not terminated as to assets remaining in his hands when the spouses separate. It is part of his fiduciary duties to account to the wife for the community property when the spouses are negotiating a property settlement agreement. The concealment of community property assets by the husband from the wife in connection with such an agreement is therefore a breach of a fiduciary duty of the husband that deprives the wife of an opportunity to protect her rights in the concealed assets and thus warrants equitable relief from a judgment approving such agreement.’ ” 72 Idaho at page 440 , 242 P.2d at page 863 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Willson v. Burner · Sande v. Sande
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.