# In Re Marriage of Morrison

> California Supreme Court · January 16, 1978 · 20 Cal. 3d 437

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9545187

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re the Marriage of DAVID EDWARD and PATRICIA ROSARIO MORRISON. DAVID EDWARD MORRISON, Respondent, v. PATRICIA ROSARIO MORRISON, Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 16, 1978
- **Citations:** 20 Cal. 3d 437; 143 Cal. Rptr. 139; 573 P.2d 41; 1978 Cal. LEXIS 177
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Richardson
- **Judges:** Bird, Richardson
- **Cited by:** 118 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9545187

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that in determining the value of a law practice for purposes of marital property division, the assets considered should include work in progress partially completed but not billed as a receivable, work completed but not billed, and goodwill

## Opinion text

RICHARDSON, J.
I concur in the judgment. I respectfully note, however, that the holding in In re Marriage of Lopez (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 93 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 58 ], in which I concurred, neither favors “termination of jurisdiction over spousal support for the sole purpose of curtailing the number of future modification hearings” (ante, p. 450) nor promotes spousal self-sufficiency without regard to the realistic financial capabilities of the parties. On the contrary, the Lopez court determined that, given the facts of that case, the trial court had abused its discretion as to the amount and duration of spousal support ordered and accordingly reversed a judgment as to that award. In my view, the holding in Lopez does not contain language inconsistent with the broad policy expressions set forth herein and disapproval of Lopez is not, therefore, required.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied February 15, 1978, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9545187. Public record. Not legal advice.