Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 F.2d 170 - Howard v. United States

Howard v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

2 F.2d 170 · 1924

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
6
states following
October 2009
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2009 · most notably Niewiadomski v. United States (1947), Miller v. United States (1941)

10 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

90192419301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 McDonald v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis R'y Co. · Marshall v. Wabash Railroad · Meisner v. United States · In re Gibson

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

  1. ““The term ‘in loco parentis,’ according to its generally accepted common law meaning, refers to a person who has put himself in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations incident to the parental relation without going through the formalities necessary to legal adoption. It embodies the two ideas of assuming the parental status and discharging the parental duties. . . . We fully recognize the kindness and generosity which, to a large degree, was extended by appellant and her husband to the insured, but as indicated above, kindness and generosity, even on the part of near relatives, are not the same as assuming the common law relationship of in loco parentis”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““When used to designate a person it means (1) one who means to put himself in the situation of a lawful father to the child, with reference to the office and duty of making provision for the child; * * * (2) one assuming the parental character and discharging the parental duties. “Decisions are cited in support of each definition here given. One may therefore be said to stand in loco parentis to a child when he acts the part of a lawful father in performing the duty of providing for him, intending thereby to take his place in this particular. To bring about such relationship or status it is not essential that he act the part of the parent in any other particular”.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The proper definition of a person in loco parentis to a child is a person who means to put himself in the situation of a lawful father of the child, with reference to the father’s office and duty of making a provision for the child.””
    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.