Cutrer v. Cutrer’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Coffee v. William Marsh Rice University (1966), Delaney v. First National Bank in Albuquerque (1963)
3 federal appellate · 78 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 Murphy v. Slaton · Guilliams v. Koonsman · Britain v. Rice · Federal Land Bank v. Little · Eckford v. Knox
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Here the intention to exclude adopted children is quite plain, because the quoted expression ordinarily embraces only lineal blood descendants of the designated person. See Restatement of the Law of Property, § 306 and Comment g thereunder.” ( 345 S.W.2d at p. 517 .)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nail v. Thompson · Davis v. Waldron““. . . it is generally held that an adopted child is not entitled to property conveyed or devised to the ‘children’ of the adoptive parent unless a contrary intent is disclosed by additional language or circumstances. . . ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nail v. Thompson · Tindol v. McCoy“When a child is adopted in accordance with the provisions of this Article, all legal relationships and all rights and duties between such child and its natural parents shall cease and terminate, 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 shall thereafter be deemed and held to be, for every purpose, the child of its parent or parents by adoption as fully as though bom of them in lawful wedlock. Said child shall be entitled to proper education, support, maintenance, nurture and care from said parent or parents by adoption, and shall inherit from said parent or parents by adoption, and as the child of said parents or parents by adoption, as fully as though born to them in lawful wedlock; subject, however, to the provisions of this Act. Said parent or parents by adoption shall be entitled to the services, wages, control, custody and company of said adopted child, and shall, as such adopting parent or parents, inherit from and as the parent or parents of said adopted child as fully as though the child had been born to them in lawful wedlock; provided, however, that upon the death of such adopted child, while unmarried and without issue of its body, all its property, of whatsoever kind and nature, shall pass and descend to the adopting parent or parents, if living, but if such adopting parent or parents be not living, th”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.