88 Cal. App. 2d 708 - Lazzarevich v. Lazzarevich’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably 18 Cal. 3d 660 - Marvin v. Marvin (1976), 121 Cal. App. 2d 325 - Major-Blakeney Corp. v. Jenkins (1953)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 48 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 23 Cal. 2d 754 - Tomaier v. Tomaier · Siberell v. Siberell · Vallera v. Vallera · Schneider v. Schneider · Coats v. Coats
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A different result must obtain as to services performed by plaintiff [Mrs. Laz-zarevich] after August 10, 1945. As we have noted, the parties separated on August 1, 1945. On August 10, 1945, plaintiff discovered that the final decree of divorce had been entered on September 6, 1933. On October 1, 1945, she went to live with defendant and continued to do so until April 1, 1946. The essence of the right of a putative wife to recover for services rendered the putative husband is her belief in the validity of a marriage between them. After August 10, 1945, plaintiff was no longer an innocent, deluded, putative wife. She no longer believed that she was the defendant’s wife. She knew that she was not. The relationship between the parties was meretricious after October 1, 1945. Plaintiff was fully aware of the nature of the relationship. The fact that she returned to defendant upon his promise to remarry her is of no import. The “[e]quitable considerations arising from the reasonable expectation of a continuation of benefits attending the status of marriage entered into in good faith” which had existed prior to August 10, 1945, did not exist thereafter. Vallera v. Vallera, 21 Cal.2d 681, 685 , 134 P.2d 761, 763 . In the absence of an express agreement that plaintiff would be compensated for services performed after that date, she has no right to compensation therefor. Here there was no express agreement that she should be compensated [citations]. The trial court awarded plaintiff $5”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hager v. Hager · Burks v. Apfel““In some jurisdictions she has an action in damages for deceit against her putative husband in those cases where by fraud or misrepresentation he had induced her to enter into the supposed marriage relation. See Cooper v. Cooper, 147 Mass. 370 , 17 N. E. 892 , 9 Am. St. Rep. 721 ; Blossom v. Barrett, 37 N. Y. 434 , 97 Am. Dec. 747 ; Larson v. McMillan, 99 Wash. 626 , 170 P. 324 ; Amsterdam v. Amsterdam, Sup., 56 N. Y. S. 2d 19 . . . # * # In some jurisdictions including California the deluded woman is permitted to recover the reasonable value of her services over and above the value of the support and maintenance furnished her by her supposed husband. Sanguinetti v. Sanguinetti, 9 Cal. 2d 95, 100 , 69 P. 2d 845 , 111 A. L. R. 342.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fox v. Fox“arising without reference to the assent of the obligor, from the receipt of a benefit, the retention of which is unjust, and requiring the obligor to make restitution.”
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.