Nunes v. Nunes’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently March 1987 · most notably 31 Cal. 3d 637 - In Re Marriage of Flaherty (1982), 20 Cal. 3d 437 - In Re Marriage of Morrison (1978)
87 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 39 Cal. 2d 858 - De Burgh v. De Burgh · Baldwin v. Baldwin · Webber v. Webber · 18 Cal. 2d 445 - Keener v. Keener · 199 Cal. App. 2d 876 - Brawman v. Brawman
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In determining whether or not to grant alimony, the court should consider the comparative guilt of the parties, the needs of one spouse, and the ability of the other spouse to contribute support. (Mueller v. Mueller (1955) 44 Cal.2d 527 , 530 et seq. [ 232 P.2d 869 ].) “The evidence as to the guilt of the parties is conflicting in some respects, and the undisputed evidence does not estdb lish as a matter of law that defendant’s culpability was greater than that of plaintiff. “The court found that plaintiff could be self-supporting. The record shows that she had emotional difficulties and suffered from diabetes and Bell’s palsy but that she was capable of working during her emotional crises and had worked during most of the marriage despite her physical condition, that she had a bachelor’s degree in business administration, that she indicated an intention to resume working, and that, though her earnings had not been substantial in the years prior to the divorce, she had worked only part time. It may be noted that the parties’ home awarded to plaintiff was valued at approximately $22,500 with a mortgage of about $6,500, and that plaintiff was also awarded most of the household furnishings and more than $4,000 cash. With regard to defendant’s ability to support plaintiff, it is clear that he earned a substantial salary and had a small income from painting.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nunan v. Nunan“Even where an innocent spouse is involved, the granting or refusing of alimony in an action for divorce lies largely in the discretion of the trial court. (Baldwin v. Baldwin (1946) 28 Cal.2d 406, 413 [ 170 P.2d 670 ]; see Webber v. Webber (1948) 33 Cal.2d 153, 161 [ 199 P.2d 934 ].) Although other triers of fact might have become more generously disposed toward plaintiff, under the circumstances of the present case we cannot find that there has been an abuse of discretion. This is not a case like Webber v. Webber, supra, where an innocent spouse after a 36-year marriage is left with no property or source of income and without training or education which would equip her to earn a livelihood in the competitive world. Nor is it a case like Brawman v. Brawman (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 876 , 879 et seq. [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 106 ], where the dissolution of the 21-year marriage was due solely to the husband's fault, and the innocent wife, who had raised their children and had not worked for a period in excess of 20 years, was to be reduced to straitened circumstances.”
1 later decision 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.