Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 49 CAL2D 189 - Craft v. Craft

Craft v. Craft’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
states following
February 2010
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2010 · most notably 9 Cal. 3d 773 - Pasadena Medi-Center Associates v. Superior Court (1973), 133 Cal. App. 3d 105 - County of Ventura v. Tillett (1982)

3 federal appellate · 45 state decisions

1801957196019701980199020002010decided

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 26 Cal. 2d 605 - Hough v. Hough · Burtnett v. King · Adams v. Adams · 38 Cal. 2d 676 - Lerner v. Superior Court · Parker v. Parker

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

  1. “"While a defendant must ordinarily anticipate an award of alimony in an action for divorce, he should not be required to do so where there is a stipulation waiving that relief, and the existence of such a stipulation precludes the court from awarding support money in the absence of proper notice to the defaulting defendant. Even if we were to assume that at the time of granting an interlocutory decree the court might, under some circumstances, disregard an agreement of the parties with respect to support and maintenance and make an award of alimony in derogation of the agreement (see Adams v. Adams, 29 Cal.2d 621, 624-625 [ 177 P.2d 265 ]), it could not do so in the absence of sufficient notice to a defaulting party. (For suggested procedure, see Darsie v. Darsie, 49 Cal.App.2d 491, 494-495 [ 122 P.2d 64 ]; Eddy v. Eddy, 64 Cal.App.2d 672, 673-674 [ 149 P.2d 187 ].)””
    2 later decisions 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.