69 Cal. 2d 7 - Ogle v. Heim’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`The general rule is that a court is not authorized in the construction of a statute, to create exceptions not specifically made. If the statute announces a general rule and makes no exception thereto, the courts can make none.' [Citations.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 412 So. 2d 388 - Buzzard v. Buzzard · 43 Cal. App. 3d 189 - Treadaway v. Camellia Convalescent Hospitals, Inc.

2. “690.22. All money received by any person, a resident of the State, as a pension, or retirement or disability or death or other benefit, from the United States Government, or from the State, or any county, city, or city and county, or other political subdivision of the State, or any public trust, or public corporation, or from the governing body of any of them, or from any public board or boards, whether the same shall be in the actual possession of such pensioner or beneficiary, or deposited, loaned or invested by him, is exempt from execution or attachment. 690.23. All money held, controlled or in process of distribution by the State or a city, city and county or other political subdivision of the State, or any public trust, or public corporation, or by the governing body of any of them, or by any public board or boards, derived from the contributions by the State or such city, county, city and county, or other political subdivision, or such public trust, public corporation, governing body, or public board or boards, or by any officer or employee thereof for retirement or pension purposes or the payment of disability, death or other benefits, or benefits payable under the provisions of “An act to establish a system of unemployment reserves for this State, and making an appropriation therefore,” approved June 25, 1935, are exempt from attachment or execution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lieberman v. Hawkins (In re Lieberman)

3. ““The only exemption under which dependents have been accorded special treatment [in resisting claims of exemption from execution] is section 690.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 690.11 renders one-half of a debtor’s wages earned within the prior 30 days exempt, and allows total exemption ‘if necessary for the use of the debtor’s family.’ (Italics added.) Claims of dependents are not barred by the exemption of section 690.11. (Bruton v. Tearle, 7 Cal.2d 48 , 53 . . . ; McIntosh v. McIntosh, 209 Cal.App.2d 374 .. . ; Henry v. Henry, 182 Cal.App.2d 707 . . . ; Rankins v. Rankins, 52 Cal.App.2d 231 . . . . ) The language of section 690.11 invited the creation of an exception by expressly referencing the needs of the debtor’s family as a criterion for exemption. By contrast, the pension exemption statutes contain no similar criterion and refute any such exception. The peculiar development of the wage exemption is therefore inapposite, despite certain parallels between wages and pensions. ’ ’ (Ogle v. Heim, supra, 69 Cal.2d 7 at p. 11 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 275 Cal. App. 2d 443 - Rasmussen v. Rasmussen