Phelps v. Phelps’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2010
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 9 Cal. 2d 556 - Rosher v. Superior Court · Fitzgerald v. Valdez · Stockard v. Hamilton · Moore v. Superior Court · Mason v. Mason
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) any person whp has reached his eighteenth birthday shall be considered to have reached his majority and is an adult for all purposes the same as if he had reached his twenty-first birthday; (2) any law conferring any right or privilege, or imposing any duty or obligation, upon any person who has reached his twenty-first birthday shall apply to any person who has reached his eighteenth birthday; (3) any law which denies any right or privilege to persons who have not reached their twenty-first birthday shall apply only to persons who have not reached their eighteenth birthday; and (4) any law, except the Liquor Control Act [§§ 46-1-1 to 46-11-4], which differentiates between treatment to be accorded persons who have reached their twenty-first birthday and those who have not, shall differentiate between treatment to be accorded persons who have reached their eighteenth birthday and those who have not. B. It is the intent of the legislature that this general law shall control over any conflicting prior special law except that it shall not apply to or change any age requirements for exercising the elective franchise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Peterson v. Romero“The evident intention of [Article IV, Section 34 of] the [New Mexico] Constitution is to prevent legislative interference with matters of evidence and procedure in cases that are in the process or course of litiga-, tion in the various courts of the state, and which have not been concluded, finished, or determined by a final judgment. This provision of the Constitution was inserted for the purpose of curing a well-known method, too often used in the days when New Mexico was under a territorial form of government, to win cases in the courts by legislation which changed the rules of evidence and procedure in cases which were then being adjudicated by the various courts of the state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[I]f any of the property decreed or funds created for the maintenance and education of the children shall remain on hand and be undisposed of at the time the minor children reach the age of majority, the same may be disposed of by the court as it may deem just and proper.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dillard v. Dillard
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.