Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 97 CALAPP2D 787 - Ikuta v. Ikuta

Ikuta v. Ikuta’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
7
states following
February 2015
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Strock v. Pressnell (1988), Barbara A. v. John G. (1983)

42 state decisions

1001950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Maynard v. Hill · 35 Cal. 2d 121 - Werner v. Southern California Associated Newpapers · In Re the Guardianship of Coburn · Heron v. Riley · Powers Farms, Inc. v. Consolidated Irrigation District

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

  1. ““Appellant claims that section 43.5 [Civil Code] is obnoxious to the provisions of section 1 of article I of the California Constitution in that it ‘subjects the happiness of every married person, to the caprice and irreverence of whomever arbitrarily seeks to interfere with the most solemn and sacred of obligations. ’ The rights to enjoy liberty, to acquire, possess and protect property, which are secured to the individual by section 1, are not absolute but are ‘ circumscribed by the requirements of the public good. ’ (In re Moffett, 19 Cal.App.2d 7,14 [ 64 P.2d 1190 ].) Like the protection accorded to personal rights and privileges by the requirement of due process of law, the guarantees of section 1 cannot operate as a curtailment upon the basic power of the Legislature to enact reasonable police regulations.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““A title will not be held objectionable merely because it is general in terms, or is broader in scope than the provisions of the act, as long as those provisions are germane to the subject. ...””
    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.