14 California opinions name it 1 courts 1968–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfieldgreen2 sentences2004(See, e.g., Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1355-1357 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ] [attorney not liable to accounting firm hired as expert witness for attorney’s client]; Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 706-707 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 627 ] [attorney for close corporation owed no duty of care to minority shareholder]; Burger v. Pond (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 597, 606 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 709 ] [no liability to future wife of client for alleged negligence in handling of client’s divorce from first wife]; Sooy v. Peter (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1305, 2004(See, e.g., Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1355-1357 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ] [attorney not liable to accounting firm hired as expert witness for attorney’s client]; Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 706-707 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 627 ] [attorney for close corporation owed no duty of care to minority shareholder]; Burger v. Pond (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 597, 606 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 709 ] [no liability to future wife of client for alleged negligence in handling of client’s divorce from first wife]; Sooy v. Peter (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1305, | 1 | 2 |
Fox v. Pollackgreen2 sentences2004(See, e.g., Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1355-1357 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ] [attorney not liable to accounting firm hired as expert witness for attorney’s client]; Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 706-707 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 627 ] [attorney for close corporation owed no duty of care to minority shareholder]; Burger v. Pond (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 597, 606 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 709 ] [no liability to future wife of client for alleged negligence in handling of client’s divorce from first wife]; Sooy v. Peter (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1305, 2004(See, e.g., Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1355-1357 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ] [attorney not liable to accounting firm hired as expert witness for attorney’s client]; Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 706-707 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 627 ] [attorney for close corporation owed no duty of care to minority shareholder]; Burger v. Pond (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 597, 606 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 709 ] [no liability to future wife of client for alleged negligence in handling of client’s divorce from first wife]; Sooy v. Peter (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1305, | 1 | 2 |
Lucas v. Hammgreen2 sentences2004Balancing of Six Biakanja/Lucas Factors Evaluating the existence of an attorney's duty to a nonclient as "a matter of policy" ( Lucas, supra, 56 Cal.2d 583, 588 , 15 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 364 P.2d 685 ), we must balance the six Biakanja/Lucas factors. 2004Balancing of Six Biakanja/Lucas Factors Evaluating the existence of an attorney’s duty to a nonclient as “a matter of policy” ( Lucas, supra, 56 Cal.2d 583, 588 ), we must balance the six Biakanja/Lucas factors. | 1 | 2 |
Burger v. Pondgreen2 sentences2004(See, e.g., Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1355-1357 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ] [attorney not liable to accounting firm hired as expert witness for attorney’s client]; Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 706-707 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 627 ] [attorney for close corporation owed no duty of care to minority shareholder]; Burger v. Pond (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 597, 606 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 709 ] [no liability to future wife of client for alleged negligence in handling of client’s divorce from first wife]; Sooy v. Peter (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1305, 2004(See, e.g., Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1355-1357 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ] [attorney not liable to accounting firm hired as expert witness for attorney’s client]; Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 706-707 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 627 ] [attorney for close corporation owed no duty of care to minority shareholder]; Burger v. Pond (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 597, 606 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 709 ] [no liability to future wife of client for alleged negligence in handling of client’s divorce from first wife]; Sooy v. Peter (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1305, | 1 | 2 |
Hiemstra v. Hustongreen2 sentences2004(See Hiemstra v. Huston (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1048 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 269 ] [case—unlike Biakanja, Lucas, or Heyer—involved a valid will that “contained no legal deficiency which prevented [testator’s] wishes expressed therein from being carried out”].) In various contexts, California appellate courts have similarly held—after balancing the Biakanja/Lucas factors—that the attorney owed no duty of care to a nonclient. 2004(See Hiemstra v. Huston (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1048 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 269 ] [case—unlike Biakanja, Lucas, or Heyer—involved a valid will that “contained no legal deficiency which prevented [testator’s] wishes expressed therein from being carried out”].) In various contexts, California appellate courts have similarly held—after balancing the Biakanja/Lucas factors—that the attorney owed no duty of care to a nonclient. | 1 | 2 |
Schick v. Lernergreen2 sentences2004(See, e.g., Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1355-1357 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ] [attorney not liable to accounting firm hired as expert witness for attorney’s client]; Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 706-707 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 627 ] [attorney for close corporation owed no duty of care to minority shareholder]; Burger v. Pond (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 597, 606 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 709 ] [no liability to future wife of client for alleged negligence in handling of client’s divorce from first wife]; Sooy v. Peter (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1305, 2004(See, e.g., Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1355-1357 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ] [attorney not liable to accounting firm hired as expert witness for attorney’s client]; Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 706-707 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 627 ] [attorney for close corporation owed no duty of care to minority shareholder]; Burger v. Pond (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 597, 606 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 709 ] [no liability to future wife of client for alleged negligence in handling of client’s divorce from first wife]; Sooy v. Peter (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1305, | 1 | 2 |
Sooy v. Petergreen2 sentences2004(See, e.g., Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1355-1357 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ] [attorney not liable to accounting firm hired as expert witness for attorney’s client]; Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 706-707 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 627 ] [attorney for close corporation owed no duty of care to minority shareholder]; Burger v. Pond (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 597, 606 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 709 ] [no liability to future wife of client for alleged negligence in handling of client’s divorce from first wife]; Sooy v. Peter (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1305, 2004(See, e.g., Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1355-1357 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ] [attorney not liable to accounting firm hired as expert witness for attorney’s client]; Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 706-707 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 627 ] [attorney for close corporation owed no duty of care to minority shareholder]; Burger v. Pond (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 597, 606 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 709 ] [no liability to future wife of client for alleged negligence in handling of client’s divorce from first wife]; Sooy v. Peter (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1305, | 1 | 2 |
Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co.green2 sentences2004(See, e.g., Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1355-1357 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ] [attorney not liable to accounting firm hired as expert witness for attorney’s client]; Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 706-707 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 627 ] [attorney for close corporation owed no duty of care to minority shareholder]; Burger v. Pond (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 597, 606 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 709 ] [no liability to future wife of client for alleged negligence in handling of client’s divorce from first wife]; Sooy v. Peter (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1305, 2004(See, e.g., Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1355-1357 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ] [attorney not liable to accounting firm hired as expert witness for attorney’s client]; Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 706-707 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 627 ] [attorney for close corporation owed no duty of care to minority shareholder]; Burger v. Pond (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 597, 606 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 709 ] [no liability to future wife of client for alleged negligence in handling of client’s divorce from first wife]; Sooy v. Peter (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1305, | 1 | 2 |
In Re Marriage of Bouquetgreen2 sentences1988(Id. at pp. 158-159.) Relying on language in In re Marriage of Bouquet (1976) 16 Cal.3d 583, 591 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 427 , 546 P.2d 1371 ], the court concluded wife’s property right vested on the date of acquisition: “ ‘The status of property as community or separate is normally determined at the time of its acquisition.’ [Citations.] Since there was no agreement to the contrary, that property became community property as soon as it was acquired pursuant to the Lucas presumption. 1988(Id. at pp. 158-159.) Relying on language in In re Marriage of Bouquet (1976) 16 Cal.3d 583, 591 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 427 , 546 P.2d 1371 ], the court concluded wife’s property right vested on the date of acquisition: “ ‘The status of property as community or separate is normally determined at the time of its acquisition.’ [Citations.] Since there was no agreement to the contrary, that property became community property as soon as it was acquired pursuant to the Lucas presumption. | 1 | 2 |
People v. McCowangreen2 sentences1997I don’t—I couldn’t say exactly what I was thinking.” Assuming jurors might have accepted Lucas’s claim of getting “mad,” they could not have rationally found that a reasonable person in the circumstances would have been provoked to shoot—certainly without evidence of what provocative “names” the car’s occupants may have been yelling (e.g., People v. McCowan (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1, 8, 15 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 23 ] *740 [victim had made an “obscene gesture”]). 1997I don’t—I couldn’t say exactly what I was thinking.” Assuming jurors might have accepted Lucas’s claim of getting “mad,” they could not have rationally found that a reasonable person in the circumstances would have been provoked to shoot—certainly without evidence of what provocative “names” the car’s occupants may have been yelling (e.g., People v. McCowan (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1, 8, 15 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 23 ] *740 [victim had made an “obscene gesture”]). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Eatongreen2 sentences1995(Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 289 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 ]; cf. Anderson v. Eaton (1930) 211 Cal. 113, 116 [ 293 P. 788 ].) They also analyze each of the Biakanja!Lucas factors, and conclude that Lucas does not support “a rule of law encouraging attorneys to rush their clients into making [a testamentary] decision before they may be ready . . . ,” and that such a rule “would be against public policy.” As we undertake to weigh the various policy factors the parties have identified, we note preliminarily that Radovich’s repeated references to perceived shortcomings 1995(Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 289 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 ]; cf. Anderson v. Eaton (1930) 211 Cal. 113, 116 [ 293 P. 788 ].) They also analyze each of the Biakanja!Lucas factors, and conclude that Lucas does not support “a rule of law encouraging attorneys to rush their clients into making [a testamentary] decision before they may be ready . . . ,” and that such a rule “would be against public policy.” As we undertake to weigh the various policy factors the parties have identified, we note preliminarily that Radovich’s repeated references to perceived shortcomings | 1 | 1 |
Flatt v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1995(Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 289 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 ]; cf. Anderson v. Eaton (1930) 211 Cal. 113, 116 [ 293 P. 788 ].) They also analyze each of the Biakanja!Lucas factors, and conclude that Lucas does not support “a rule of law encouraging attorneys to rush their clients into making [a testamentary] decision before they may be ready . . . ,” and that such a rule “would be against public policy.” As we undertake to weigh the various policy factors the parties have identified, we note preliminarily that Radovich’s repeated references to perceived shortcomings 1995(Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 289 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 ]; cf. Anderson v. Eaton (1930) 211 Cal. 113, 116 [ 293 P. 788 ].) They also analyze each of the Biakanja!Lucas factors, and conclude that Lucas does not support “a rule of law encouraging attorneys to rush their clients into making [a testamentary] decision before they may be ready . . . ,” and that such a rule “would be against public policy.” As we undertake to weigh the various policy factors the parties have identified, we note preliminarily that Radovich’s repeated references to perceived shortcomings | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Johnsongreen2 sentences1984(See In re Marriage of Lucas [1980] 27 Cal.3d [808,] 814-815 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 853 , 614 P.2d 285 ].)” (In re Marriage of *80 Johnson, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d at p. 60 .) 3 The trial court found “that the presumption was not rebutted by [husband] by showing that there was a mutual agreement or understanding . . . .” The Lucas requirement of an agreement or understanding has been abrogated by recent legislative enactment. 1984(In re Marriage of Johnson (1982) 143 Cal.App.3d 57, 60-61 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 545 ]; In re Marriage of Priddis (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 349, 360 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 37 ].) 4 California Civil Code section 4800.2 became effective January 1, 1984, after the trial herein. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Priddisgreen2 sentences1984(In re Marriage of Johnson (1982) 143 Cal.App.3d 57, 60-61 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 545 ]; In re Marriage of Priddis (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 349, 360 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 37 ].) 4 California Civil Code section 4800.2 became effective January 1, 1984, after the trial herein. 1984(In re Marriage of Johnson (1982) 143 Cal.App.3d 57, 60-61 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 545 ]; In re Marriage of Priddis (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 349, 360 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 37 ].) 4 California Civil Code section 4800.2 became effective January 1, 1984, after the trial herein. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Mooregreen2 sentences1984(In re Marriage of Moore (1980) 28 Cal.3d 366, 371-372 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 662 , 618 P.2d 208 ].) 3 The Lucas rule has been applied to personal as well as real property. 1984(In re Marriage of Moore (1980) 28 Cal.3d 366, 371-372 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 662 , 618 P.2d 208 ].) 3 The Lucas rule has been applied to personal as well as real property. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moore v. Anderson Zeigler Disharoon Gallagher & Gray, PC
green
2 sentences2004(See Moore, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th 1287 , 135 Cal. Rptr.2d 888 .) In Moore, the testator's children alleged that the attorney who had drafted amendments to their father's estate plan, which reduced the children's share, was negligent in failing to ascertain his client's testamentary capacity. ( Id. at p. 1290, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 888 .) The children alleged that as a result of the attorney's failure to determine their father's testamentary capacity and to document that evaluation, they received less through their settlement of ensuing estate litigation than they would have received under their fat 2004(See Moore, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th 1287 , 135 Cal. Rptr.2d 888 .) In Moore, the testator's children alleged that the attorney who had drafted amendments to their father's estate plan, which reduced the children's share, was negligent in failing to ascertain his client's testamentary capacity. ( Id. at p. 1290, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 888 .) The children alleged that as a result of the attorney's failure to determine their father's testamentary capacity and to document that evaluation, they received less through their settlement of ensuing estate litigation than they would have received under their fat | 3 | 2004–2016 |
In Re Marriage of Neal
green
2 sentences1984We think that section 4800.1 was enacted to provide a *30 reliable test by which to determine the understanding of the parties; it seeks to prevent the abuses and unpredictability which have resulted from application of the Lucas standard. ( In re Marriage of Neal, supra, 153 Cal. App.3d 117, 121 .) Section 4800.1 also better protects the sanctity of the joint tenancy deed. 1984We think that section 4800.1 was enacted to provide a *30 reliable test by which to determine the understanding of the parties; it seeks to prevent the abuses and unpredictability which have resulted from application of the Lucas standard. ( In re Marriage of Neal, supra, 153 Cal. App.3d 117, 121 .) Section 4800.1 also better protects the sanctity of the joint tenancy deed. | 2 | 1984–1984 |
Chang v. Lederman
green
1 sentence2016However, the same test was applied in Chang and the court held that even if all five other factors weighed in favor of Chang, the sixth factor (undue burden on the profession from imposing liability) required a rejection of Chang's claim. ( Chang, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at pp. 83-84.) Sutton further argues that his case is distinguishable from Chang because there is no conflict of interest relating to Ruth's intended beneficiaries. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Radovich v. Locke-Paddon
green
2 sentences2009The attorney’s duty here was to take appropriate action to carry out the testator’s wishes—that were expressed and formalized in her signed will—that her intended beneficiary, Osornio, inherit her entire estate.” (Id. at p. 336.) In finding a duty of care to the intended beneficiary in Osornio, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th 304 , our colleagues in the Sixth District distinguished their earlier decision in Radovich v. Locke-Paddon (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 946 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 573 ] (Radovich), which it described as involving “the malpractice claim of a potential beneficiary identified in an unsigned will 2009The attorney’s duty here was to take appropriate action to carry out the testator’s wishes—that were expressed and formalized in her signed will—that her intended beneficiary, Osornio, inherit her entire estate.” (Id. at p. 336.) In finding a duty of care to the intended beneficiary in Osornio, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th 304 , our colleagues in the Sixth District distinguished their earlier decision in Radovich v. Locke-Paddon (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 946 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 573 ] (Radovich), which it described as involving “the malpractice claim of a potential beneficiary identified in an unsigned will | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Osornio v. Weingarten
green
1 sentence2009The attorney’s duty here was to take appropriate action to carry out the testator’s wishes—that were expressed and formalized in her signed will—that her intended beneficiary, Osornio, inherit her entire estate.” (Id. at p. 336.) In finding a duty of care to the intended beneficiary in Osornio, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th 304 , our colleagues in the Sixth District distinguished their earlier decision in Radovich v. Locke-Paddon (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 946 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 573 ] (Radovich), which it described as involving “the malpractice claim of a potential beneficiary identified in an unsigned will | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Boranian v. Clark
green
2 sentences2004(See Boranian v. Clark (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1012 , 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 405 ; Featherson v. Farwell (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1022 , 20 Cal. Rptr.3d 412 .) In each case, Justice Vogel, writing for the court, relied upon Moore in concluding that the imposition of duty would place the attorney in a position of having divided loyalties between his or her client, the testator, and the beneficiary. 2004(See Boranian v. Clark (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1012 , 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 405 ; Featherson v. Farwell (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1022 , 20 Cal. Rptr.3d 412 .) In each case, Justice Vogel, writing for the court, relied upon Moore in concluding that the imposition of duty would place the attorney in a position of having divided loyalties between his or her client, the testator, and the beneficiary. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In Re Marriage of Griffis
green
1 sentence1987D-12-D-13.)” ( In re Marriage of Griffis, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d 156, 165 .) Bound by the Supreme Court’s determination in Buol and Fabian that the legislative purpose underlying sections 4800.1 and 4800.2 was not sufficiently compelling to justify the impairment of a vested property right, the Griffis court held applying section 4800.2 to any property acquired before the effective date of the statute is unconstitutional, regardless of when the dissolution action was filed. “[A]ll of the property under dispute was acquired at a time when the Lucas rule was still in effect. ‘The status of proper | 1 | 1987–1987 |
In Re Marriage of Fabian
green
2 sentences1986(Fabian v. Fabian (1986) 41 Cal.3d 440 , 451 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 333 , 715 P.2d 253 ].) 11 It is presumed the expenses of the family are paid from community funds rather than separate funds. 1986(Fabian v. Fabian (1986) 41 Cal.3d 440 , 451 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 333 , 715 P.2d 253 ].) 11 It is presumed the expenses of the family are paid from community funds rather than separate funds. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
In Re Marriage of Buol
green
2 sentences1986“The status of property as community or separate is normally determined at the time of its acquisition.” (In re Marriage of Bouquet, supra, 16 Cal.3d 583, 591 ; In re Marriage of Buol, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 757 .) Since there was no agreement to the contrary, that property became community property as soon as it was acquired pursuant to the Lucas presumption. 1986“The status of property as community or separate is normally determined at the time of its acquisition.” (In re Marriage of Bouquet, supra, 16 Cal.3d 583, 591 ; In re Marriage of Buol, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 757 .) Since there was no agreement to the contrary, that property became community property as soon as it was acquired pursuant to the Lucas presumption. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
In Re Marriage of Lucas
green
2 sentences1984(See In re Marriage of Lucas [1980] 27 Cal.3d [808,] 814-815 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 853 , 614 P.2d 285 ].)” (In re Marriage of *80 Johnson, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d at p. 60 .) 3 The trial court found “that the presumption was not rebutted by [husband] by showing that there was a mutual agreement or understanding . . . .” The Lucas requirement of an agreement or understanding has been abrogated by recent legislative enactment. 1984(See In re Marriage of Lucas [1980] 27 Cal.3d [808,] 814-815 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 853 , 614 P.2d 285 ].)” (In re Marriage of *80 Johnson, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d at p. 60 .) 3 The trial court found “that the presumption was not rebutted by [husband] by showing that there was a mutual agreement or understanding . . . .” The Lucas requirement of an agreement or understanding has been abrogated by recent legislative enactment. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Ishmael v. Millington
green
2 sentences1968(Ishmael v. Millington, supra, 241 Cal.App.2d at p. 528 ; Anderson v. Eaton, supra, 211 Cal. at p. 116; All *148 state Ins. 1968(Ishmael v. Millington, supra, 241 Cal.App.2d at p. 528 ; Anderson v. Eaton, supra, 211 Cal. at p. 116; All *148 state Ins. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.