39 Cal. 2d 858 - De Burgh v. De Burgh’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 216 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 227 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably 64 Cal. 2d 778 - See v. See (1966), Weinberg v. Weinberg (1967)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 216 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Loughran v. Loughran · Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co. · Tupman v. Haberkern · Sharon v. Sharon · 38 Cal. 2d 265 - Spaulding v. Cameron
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 227 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is a degradation of marriage and a frustration of its purposes when the courts use it as a device for punishment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““Section 146 of the Civil Code provides that if the divorce is granted for extreme cruelty, the court may apportion community property as it deems just, but that statute has been interpreted to permit an award of more than half of the community property only to an innocent spouse. (Eslinger v. Eslinger, 47 Cal. 62, 64 .) When a divorce is granted to both parties, neither is innocent within the meaning of this rule, and the community property must he equally divided. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. Williams“And on page 873 it is said: “In many ways the guilt of the parties may be unequal—in the gravity of the misconduct involved, in the frequency of its occurrence, or in its effect upon children and others. . . . Their comparative guilt may have an important bearing upon whether or not either one or both should be granted relief.””
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.