Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 CALAPP2D 36 - Newbauer v. Newbauer

Newbauer v. Newbauer’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
states following
March 1983
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently March 1983 · most notably 38 Cal. App. 3d 93 - In Re Marriage of Lopez (1974), 86 Cal. App. 3d 290 - In Re Marriage of Cueva (1978)

42 state decisions

17019491950196019701980decided

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 Baldwin v. Baldwin · 63 Cal. App. 2d 470 - Heck v. Heck · Bailey v. Bailey · 81 Cal. App. 2d 229 - De La Luz Tovar Cozzi v. Cozzi · Biaggi v. Sawyer

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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““. . . the trial court is given a broad discretion in determining the amount of alimony to be paid and the period during which payment shall continue, which discretion ordinarily will not be interfered with on an appeal save for a manifest abuse thereof. That these matters are within the discretion of the trial court is made plain by section 139 of the Civil Code which provides that such court may ‘make such suitable allowance to the wife for her support, during her life or for a shorter period as the court may deem just, having regard to the circumstances of the parties respectively.’ (Italics added.) "”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““That the members of this court might have been more liberal is not the test. The discretion was the trial judge’s, not ours; and we can only interfere if we find that under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the trial court’s action, no judge could reasonably have made the order that he did.””
    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.