Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 195 Ga. 79 - Comer v. Comer

Comer v. Comer’s Empirical Analysis

1942

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
8
states following
March 2002
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2002 · most notably 32 Cal. 2d 265 - Sontheimer v. Pierce (1948), Bradford v. Johnson (1953)

28 state decisions

1001942195019601970198019902000decided

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 Hockaday v. Lynn · In Re the Accounting of Leask · Sumpter v. Carter · Wright v. Hicks · Ewing v. Shropshire

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

  1. ““None of the language here quoted would, according to its natural import; include a person that was adopted as a child by one of the testator’s children, where the adoption did not take place until after the testator’s death. It would be unreasonable to say that he had any such adopted child in mind at the time of making his will, and it would require a clear addition to that instrument to include the plaintiff as one of the objects of his bounty. There being nothing in the will to the contrary, it’ is presumed that the testator intended that his property should go according to the law of natural descent, and not according to some artificial relation created by law. • . . . [Citations.] Generally, the terms ‘issue,’ ‘children,’ ‘heir,’ and words' of similar import, in a will, are intended to refer tó natural or blood relationships, and would not include an adopted child in the absence of circumstances clearly showing- that the testator so intended. The artificial relation created by adoption is an unusual and exceptional one, and hence would not fall within the ordinary signification of such terms.....””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he disposition of the courts [wa]s to confine and limit the word `children' in its application, when it occur[red] in a will, to its natural import, excluding adopted children, except where the testator ha[d] clearly shown by other words that he intended to use the term in a more extensive sense.”
    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.