Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 58 CAL 596 - Shinn v. Macpherson

Shinn v. Macpherson’s Empirical Analysis

1881

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
4
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2018

2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

4018811890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Barber v. Babel · Shoemake v. Chalfant

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

  1. ““In our opinion, tiiere is no provision of tlie homestead law that affords a cloak for such a transaction. That law was enacted for beneficent pur poses, designed to secure a home for the family, but, as said by counsel for respondent, was never intended ‘to be a secure and impregnable asylum in which to deposit peculations from others.’ It is true that the statute provides that the homestead can only be conveyed or incumbered by an instrument executed and acknowledged by both husband and wife, and also that it is by the statute exempted from execution or forced sale, except in certain enumerated cases. But these provisions of the statute have no application to the case before us. The one regulates the mode of transfer or incumbrance of the homestead between the spouses and third persons, when the same is to be effected by conventional arrangement, not by act and operation of law; the other was designed to protect it from forced sale for ordinary indebtedness, etc., not as an immunity from torts and their legal consequences. Shoemake v. Chalfant, 47 Cal. 435 ; Riddell v. Shirley, 5 Cal. 488 ; Bishop v. Hubbard, 23 Cal. 514 [ 83 Am. Dec. 132 ].””
    3 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.