Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 Cal. App. 4th 1378 - Mitchell v. Mitchell

76 Cal. App. 4th 1378 - Mitchell v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
3
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 15 Cal. 3d 838 - In Re Marriage of Brown · 23 Cal. 2d 754 - Tomaier v. Tomaier · 17 Cal. 3d 738 - In Re Marriage of Fonstein · 54 Cal. 3d 26 - Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross · 18 Cal. 3d 150 - Tenhet v. Boswell

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 1989, the Legislature enacted what is now ... section 2040, subdivision (a)(2), which requires the summons in a dissolution proceeding to include a temporary restraining order enjoining the parties from, among other things, 'transferring, encumbering, hypothecating, concealing, or in any way disposing of any property, real or personal, whether community, quasi-community, or separate, without the written consent of the other party or an order of the court, except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life ....'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Ordinarily, holding community property in joint tenancy form is mutually advantageous, during marriage as well as after dissolution. Once a dissolution proceeding is pending, however, 'it is illogical that [the] parties ... would envision or desire the operation of survivorship. An untimely death results in a windfall to the surviving spouse, a result neither party presumably intends or anticipates.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “'interest of a person who merely foresees that he might receive a future beneficence.' " ( Id. at p. 1392, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 192 .) Therefore, the court concluded, one spouse's "sever[ance of] a joint tenancy with the other spouse by executing and recording a declaration of severance ... does not violate an injunctive order entered pursuant to ... section 2040, subdivision (a)....”
    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.