Jones v. Guy’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 102 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently February 2004 · most notably Cavanaugh v. Davis (1951), Grasser v. Grasser (1948)
3 federal appellate · 102 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.
Relationships
Relies on Hooks v. Bridgewater · Jordan v. Abney, Administrator · Cubley v. Barbee · Eckford v. Knox · Taylor v. Deseve
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[estoppel operates] to preclude adoptive parents and their privies [ i.e., the estate] from asserting the invalidity of adoption proceedings, or, at least, the status of the adopted child, when, by performance upon the part of the child, the adoptive parents have received all the benefits and privileges accruing from such performance, and they by their representations induced such performance under the belief of the existence of the status of adopted child."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The testimony in the Cubley case shows that the adoptive parent had there executed and acknowledged an instrument as part of the agreement under which the child was taken, which the Court of Civil Appeals * * * construed as being testamentary in character, and concerning which instrument the Supreme Court held that the adoptive parent by her acts and representations was estopped to deny that it was a deed of adoption. But the doctrine of equity upon which decision in the Cubley case was based does not rest upon execution of the adoption deed. It rests upon the adoptive parent having received the benefits of the relation fully performed by the child. The language of the rule itself as declared in the Cubley case, as well as the authorities there cited from which the rule is drawn, clearly shows that exercise of the equitable power of the court to grant relief to the child, against the fraud of the adoptive parents' neglect or design in failing to do that which he in equity was obligated to do, is not dependent or conditioned upon such adoptive parents having executed but failed to file an instrument of adoption.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Merriman v. Lary
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.