Gatchell v. Curtis’s Empirical Analysis
1936
Citation profile
2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1991
2 district · 8 state decisions
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.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Counsel for the widow contends, however, that such statute having been passed since the adoption does not control, that it is the act which was in effect at the time of the adoption which determines the rights of the parties. Such is not the law. The case of Latham, Appellant, 124 Me., 120, 126 A., 626 , is a direct authority to the contrary. A decree of adoption entered in accordance with power conferred by statute fixes the status of the child; it divests the natural parents of control and establishes the rights and obligations of the foster parents. It does not settle for all time the child’s right to inherit property. That remains as in the case of all persons subject to legislative regulation, until it becomes vested by the death of him whose estate may be subject to administration. The same principle of course applies to the rights of those who may inherit from the child. The rule is well set forth in Latham, Appellant, supra, at page 122, in the following language: ‘The rights of descent flow from the legal status of the parties, and where the status is fixed, the law supplies the rules of descent, with reference to the situation as it existed at the death of the decedent.’ The following authorities support this same general doctrine. In re Clarence E. Crowell’s Estate, 124 Me., 71, 126 A., 178 ; Gilliam v. Guaranty Trust Company of New York, 186 N.Y., 127 , 78 N.E., 697 ; Sorenson v. Rasmussen, 114 Minn., 324 , 131 N.W., 325 ; The Brooks Bank & Trust Company v. Rorab”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Williams · Wyman““And the adoption of a child made in any other state, according to the laws of that state, shall have the same force and effect in this state as to inheritance and all other rights and duties as it had in the state where made in case the person adopting thereafter dies domiciled in this state.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Williams · Wyman““But the important point to remember is that adoption is unknown to the common law; it exists solely by virtué of statute. 'We must accordingly look to the various legislative acts to determine the rights of. the parties affected, by the decree of adoption.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Wyman · In Re Goodwin's Estate
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.