39 Cal. 4th 794 - Bernard v. Foley’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
117 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 43 Cal. 3d 1379 - Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission · 14 Cal. 4th 605 - People v. Gardeley · 2 Cal. 4th 593 - DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. · 23 Cal. 4th 116 - Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc. · 22 Cal. 4th 1 - Samuels v. Mix
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`Instrument' means a will, trust, deed, or other writing that designates a beneficiary or makes a donative transfer of property.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Subdivisions (a), (b) and (c) of section 21351 *Page 1292 except from invalidity, respectively, transfers to relatives and cohabitants of the transferor, transfer instruments reviewed by an independent attorney who counsels the transferor and executes a specified certificate, and transfers approved by the court on petition of a conservator. Subdivision (d) of section 21351 permits a transferee other than the instrument's drafter . . . to rebut section 21350's presumption of disqualification by showing, `upon clear and convincing evidence, excluding the testimony of any person described in subdivision (a) of Section 21350, that the transfer was not the product of fraud, menace, duress, or undue influence.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Once it is determined that a person is prohibited under section 21350 from receiving a transfer, `section 21351 creates a rebuttable presumption that the transfer was the product of fraud, duress, menace, or undue influence. A person who is prohibited from receiving a transfer under section 21350 may still inherit, if [he or she] successfully rebuts the section 21351 presumption (§ 21351, subd. (d)). In order to rebut the presumption, the transferee must present clear and convincing evidence, which does not include his or her own testimony, that the transfer was not the product of fraud, duress, menace, or undue influence. (§ 21351, subd. (d).)' [Citation.]”
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.