Ungemach v. Ungemach’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

67 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . a correct decision in such cases depends upon the sound sense of justice of the trial court and that in each case it is a pure question of fact to be deduced from all the circumstances of each particular case, keeping in mind always the intelligence, apparent refinement and delicacy of sentiment of the complaining party. [Citations] . . . while the state of the evidence may have been such as would have supported an adverse finding of cruelty, it is also legally sufficient to sustain an affirmative finding on that issue; therefore the trial court’s conclusion is binding on appeal.” (See also Harris v. Harris, 210 Cal.App.2d 559, 563 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 882 ].)”

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

2. “11 This testimony constituted sufficient corroboration of plaintiff’s testimony.as to defendant’s cruelty in view of the established law in California that if there is corroborative evidence of one or more facts showing cruelty, such evidence is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 130 of the Civil Code. [Citation.] “It is also to be noted that in such a ease as the present, where the action is contested and it is apparent.that no collusion exists, the corroboration required is slight, and its sufficiency is largely for the determination of the trial judge. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 135 Cal. App. 2d 52 - Jones v. Jones