Queen v. Queen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 state decisions

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A property settlement although merely referred to in the decree as such, may, under circumstances not necessary to enumerate herein (Wallace v. Wallace, 136 Cal.App. 488 [ 29 P.2d 314 ], become res judicata, but it must be sufficiently certain and definite or a reasonable means of ascertaining its terms must be available from the pleadings or evidence (Moran v. Moran, 3 Cal.2d 342 [ 44 P.2d 546 ]; Armstrong v. Armstrong, 132 Cal.App. 609 [ 23 P.2d 50 ]; Wallace v. Wallace, supra; Atlass v. Atlass, 112 Cal.App. 514 [297 P. 53]; Cohen v. Cohen, 150 Cal. 99 [ 88 P. 267 , 11 Ann.Cas. 520]; Ettlinger v. Ettlinger, 3 Cal.2d 172 [ 44 P.2d 540 ]), before it may be enforced and constitute an estoppel between the parties. (1 Freeman on Judgments, p. 126; 14 Cal.Jur., p. 954.) Plaintiff could not have the same rights on the judgment in a divorce case, which while purporting to confirm a property settlement lacks the necessary details thereof, as on a judgment setting forth the terms of the agreement. “. . . Without incorporating the agreement therein (Moran v. Moran, supra), or referring specifically to its terms, or introducing it in evidence, the decree simply directs that it be performed. . . . The decree in the divorce action could not furnish a basis for execution or for contempt proceedings. (Lazar v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 617 [ 107 P.2d 249 ].) The approval in the decree of the agreement is insufficient to be relied upon in the present proceeding as an adjudication of its te”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tieso v. Tieso