83 Cal. App. 74 - Brown v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1927
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently August 1977 · most notably Adams v. Adams (1947), 42 Cal. 2d 55 - Flynn v. Flynn (1954)
2 federal appellate · 36 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 Pereira v. Pereira · Galusha v. . Galusha · Walker v. Walker's · Newman v. Freitas · Sewell v. Price
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A husband and wife cannot, by any contract with each other, alter their legal relations, except as to property, and except that they may agree, in writing, to an immediate separation, and may make provision for the support of either of them and of their children during such separation.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is further objected that the agreement is void in that it purports to continue in full force and effect until the death of the respondent. This question, however, is decided adversely to the contention of the appellant in the case of Higgins v. Higgins, 121 Cal. 487 [ 66 Am.St.Rep. 57 , 53 P. 1081 ], where it was held that an almost identical clause as the one contained in the agreement under consideration was valid. We quote the clause from the Higgins case: 'The payment of said annuity to be a binding and continuing obligation upon the said H. M. Higgins and upon his executors, administrators, and assigns, and to constitute a lien upon his estate during his lifetime, and after his death during the lifetime, of the said Emily J. Higgins.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““As stated in Sewell v. Price, 164 Cal. 265 ( 128 Pac. 407 ), wbile ■courts take judicial notice of tbeir own records, the rule is limited to proceeding in the same case. It is well settled that courts cannot in one case take judicial notice of other records in another and different case. (Citations). In order to have brought the proceedings in a former case to the attention of the 'trial court in this case, it would have been necessary to introduce in evidence the files and pleadings sought to be admitted here as a part of the record. This not having been done, such papers constitute no part of the record in this, a distinct and separate action.””
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.