Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 184 ILL 86 - Watts v. Dull

Watts v. Dull’s Empirical Analysis

1900

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
9
states following
May 2014
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably 15 Cal. 4th 456 - Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co. (1997), Purinton v. Jamrock (1907)

36 state decisions

90190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Galpin v. Page · Keegan v. Geraghty · Brown v. Barry · Haywood v. Collins · Barnard v. Barnard

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

  1. ““Furthermore, section 2 of the act requires that the petition shall state ‘ the name and residence of the parents of the child, if known to the petitioner.’ The petition in the case at bar states that the father of the child was dead, but it does not state the name and residence of the mother of the child, although the latter appears from the petition to have been alive. Of course, the name and residence of the parents of the child are only to be stated, if they are known to the petitioner. Inasmuch as this petition does not state whether such name and residence were known to the petitioner or not, the question arises whether it will be presumed that such name and residence were unknown because there is no allegation on the subject. Under the general doctrine already announced, that everything will be presumed to be without the jurisdiction of the court, when proceeding under a special statute, which does not distinctly appear to be within it, it would seem that such presumption as to the name and residence being unknown would not be entertained, but that the petition, by omitting any allegation on the subject, is fatally defective.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The petition, thus required by the act, is jurisdictional in its character; and the facts, which are required by the statute to give the court jurisdiction, must appear upon the face of the petition itself.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.