73 Cal. App. 4th 648 - Catch v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Van Arsdale v. Hollinger · 19 Cal. 4th 1232 - Lewis v. Superior Court · 20 Cal. 3d 618 - Brian W. v. Superior Court · 32 Cal. App. 3d 862 - Southern California First National Bank v. Swarth · Estate of McNeill
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' "Explanatory comments by a law revision commission are persuasive evidence of the intent of the Legislature in subsequently enacting its recommendations into law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““(a) Where an appointment does not satisfy the formal requirements specified in the creating instrument as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 630, the court may excuse compliance with the formal requirements and determine that exercise of the appointment was effective if both of the following requirements are satisfied: “(1) The appointment approximates the manner of appointment prescribed by the donor. “(2) The failure to satisfy the formal requirements does not defeat the accomplishment of a significant purpose of the donor. “(b) This section does not permit a court to excuse compliance with a specific reference requirement under Section 632.” (Relocation Recommendation, 21 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep., supra, at p. 108.) The Legislature enacted the proposed law. (Stats. 1992, ch. 30, § 2, pp. 114, 116.)”
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.