79 Cal. App. 2d 708 - Smith v. Stuthman’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably 46 Cal. 2d 375 - Albertson v. Raboff (1956), 62 Cal. App. 3d 389 - Goodley v. Wank & Wank, Inc. (1976)
7 federal appellate · 24 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 Coley v. Hecker · Hunt v. Authier · Hicks v. Drew · Wikstrom v. Yolo Fliers Club · Peters v. Peters
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Respondent has raised in her brief the further contention that the order of the trial court should be affirmed, on the ground that one spouse cannot sue the other for damages in tort. This defense was not pleaded and it was not stated as a ground of the motion to dismiss the action. Accordingly, respondent cannot now avail herself of its protection. (Royal Con. Min. Co. v. Royal Con. Mines Co., 157 Cal. 737, 761 [ 110 P. 123 , 137 Am.St.Rep. 165 ].) A defense in the nature of a defense in abatement is presumed to be waived if not made before the trial court. (Preston v. Knapp, 85 Cal. 559, 561-562 [ 24 P. 811 ]:)””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. MacKenzie v. Angle“Respondent contends, however, that in California the survival of causes of actions involving property rights after the death of the defendant is governed exclusively by sections 573 and 574 of the Probate Code, and that section 574 alone applies to the instant case. Assuming these contentions to be correct (without so deciding), the question is presented whether section 574 authorizes the survival of the cause of action of slander of title to real property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Howard v. Hudson
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.