42 Cal. 2d 49 - Fox v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
102 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably 42 Cal. 2d 55 - Flynn v. Flynn (1954), 42 Cal. 2d 36 - Dexter v. Dexter (1954)
102 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 Estate of Platt · Puckett v. Puckett · 42 Cal. 2d 36 - Dexter v. Dexter · 81 Cal. App. 2d 61 - Miranda v. Miranda · Patton v. Patton
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A husband and wife may contract with respect to their property (Civ. Code, § 158), and if they are living separate and apart they may provide for the support and maintenance of either of them and their children. (Civ. Code, § 159.) Moreover, as between the husband and wife, if the provisions for support and maintenance have been made an integral or inseverable part of the division of their property, and the court in a divorce action has approved the agreement, its provisions cannot thereafter be modified without the consent of both of the parties. [Citations.] . . . “. . . When, as in this case, however, the parties have made the provision for support and maintenance an integral part of their property settlement agreement, the monthly payments will ordinarily have a dual character. To the extent that they are designed to discharge the obligation of support and maintenance they will ordinarily reflect the characteristics of that obligation and thus have the indicia of alimony. [Citations.] ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Plaintiff contends, however, that since the payments were labeled alimony, were to cease on her remarriage, and were subject to modification in the event of a reduction of defendant's pension, there is evidence to support the trial court's implied finding that they were solely alimony subject to modification. ... The labels adopted by the parties are not conclusive, since the agreement must be considered as a whole. [Citations.] Moreover, as pointed out in the Dexter case, to the extent the monthly payments are designed to discharge the obligation of support and maintenance, they will ordinarily have some of the indicia of alimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Similarly, the fact that the payments might be reduced under certain specified circumstances does not indicate that they were alimony. Not only may the parties include such provisions in agreements that are admittedly solely property settlements ( Hogarty v. Hogarty, 188 Cal. 625, 628 [ 206 P. 79 ]), but the provision in this case lends support to the conclusion that at least part of the payments constituted a division of property as such. Thus in no event were the payments to fall below $200 per month, and they were to cease on a fixed date without reference to plaintiff's needs or defendant's ability to pay after that time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.