Hoch v. Hoch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 state decisions

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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When a child is adopted -in accordance with the provisions of this article, all legal relationship and -all rights and duties between such child and its natural parents shal-l cease and determine, provided however, that nothing herein shall prevent such adopted child from inheriting from its natural parent; -all -adopted children shall inherit from the -adopted as well as its natural parents. Said child shal-l thereafter be deemed -and 'held to be, for -every purpose, the child -of it-s parent -or parents by adoption as fully as though born of them in l-awful wedlock. * * * ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Decker v. Williams · Vaughn v. Gunter

2. ““It is true, of course, that a natural born son of a parent dying intestate is entitled to appointment as administrator of the decedent by virtue of being the next of kin, under the provisions of Subdivision 5, of Art. 3357. This being so, we conclude as a necessary corollary that since the Legislature has declared that an adopted child shall be ‘deemed and held to be, for every purpose, the child of its parent or parents by adoption as -fully as though born of them in lawful wedlock,’ such declaration conclusively implies the right of the adopted child, as next of kin, to administer his adoptive parents’ estate, as if he had been ‘born of them in lawful wedlock.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Spaulding v. Melch · Cutrer v. Cutrer

3. ““We are satisfied that had Frederick Iioch been adopted by Fred Hoch under this statute (Article 46a), its provisions, as between the adopted son and the adopting father, would, in law, have constituted such adopted son the son of the adopting father, just as though the adopted son had been born in lawful wedlock the natural son of the adopting father. This is the very plain intention of the statute under consideration. It intends, as to the children adopted under it, and, as between the adopting parent and the adopted child, to create a relation in law and in fact the same as exists under our laws between natural parent and natural child.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Spaulding v. Melch · Cutrer v. Cutrer