California Supreme Court· 7/18/1991
Monterey County v. Cornejo
Citations
- 812 P.2d 586
- 53 Cal. 3d 1271
- 283 Cal. Rptr. 405
- 91 Daily Journal DAR 8981
- 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5650
- 1991 Cal. LEXIS 3057
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- \ 'The new statute is entirely silent concerning whether a domestic court can require a custodial parent to execute a waiver....'\ (emphasis in original
- court’s allocation of tax exemption for minor child to noncustodial parent in enforcement proceeding was proper, as dependency exemption is highly pertinent to issue of child support
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Arabian, Mosk
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Dietz v. DietzCourt of Appeals of Virginia· 1993-10-19· cited 75×
- In Re the Marriage of RolekSupreme Court of Iowa· 1996-11-20· cited 44×
- Gazo v. GazoSupreme Court of Vermont· 1997-05-23· cited 40×
- Thorp v. ThorpMissouri Court of Appeals· 2013-01-15· cited 34×
- Thompson v. ThamesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1997-09-25· cited 26×
- Jones v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Arkansas· 1993-07-07· cited 25×
- Jager v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1992-06-29· cited 24×
- Adams-Smyrichinsky v. SmyrichinskyKentucky Supreme Court· 2015-08-20· cited 19×
- Reichert v. HornbeckCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2013-03-20· cited 15×
- In Re Marriage of McCannCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1994-07-11· cited 13×
- City and County of San Francisco v. StanleyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1994-04-21· cited 10×
- Hudson v. HudsonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2000-04-24· cited 10×
- In Re Marriage of AbernethyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1992-04-21· cited 9×
- Ford v. FordDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1991-12-11· cited 8×
- In Re Adoption of MCDCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 2001-10-26· cited 7×
- Dodge v. SturdevantAlaska Supreme Court· 2014-10-10· cited 7×
- White v. PolsonCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 2001-07-13· cited 6×
- Piso v. PisoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2000-10-27· cited 4×
- Eric M. v. Laura M.West Virginia Supreme Court· 2016-06-03· cited 1×
- Depew v. DepewCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 2001-10-26· cited 1×
Cites
61 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court· 1976-02-24· cited 16,859×
- Hisquierdo v. HisquierdoSupreme Court· 1979-01-22· cited 837×
- People v. RamirezCalifornia Supreme Court· 1979-09-07· cited 213×
- Nichols v. TedderMississippi Supreme Court· 1989-06-28· cited 194×
- Cross v. CrossWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1987-11-17· cited 106×
- Niederkorn v. NiederkornMissouri Court of Appeals· 1981-04-28· cited 95×
- Hughes v. HughesOhio Supreme Court· 1988-02-17· cited 92×
- Wassif v. WassifCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1989-01-11· cited 58×
- Morphew v. MorphewIndiana Court of Appeals· 1981-04-23· cited 57×
- Fleck v. FleckNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1988-08-17· cited 55×
- In Re the Marriage of MilesnickMontana Supreme Court· 1988-12-08· cited 51×
- Fudenberg v. MolstadCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 1986-07-08· cited 51×
- Gamble v. GambleCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama· 1990-02-28· cited 50×
- In Re Marriage of RoglianoAppellate Court of Illinois· 1990-05-17· cited 47×
- Lincoln v. LincolnCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1987-08-11· cited 46×
- In Re Marriage of ShoreCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1977-06-29· cited 42×
- Serrano v. SerranoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-11-21· cited 41×
- People v. TrailAppellate Court of Illinois· 1990-05-17· cited 40×
- Davis v. FairTex. App. Ct., 11th Dist. (Eastland)· 1986-03-27· cited 40×
- Lorenz v. LorenzMichigan Court of Appeals· 1988-02-01· cited 38×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.