Toler v. Goodin’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Cavanaugh v. Davis (1951), 117 Ga. App. 236 - Harper v. DeFreitas (1968)
3 federal appellate · 41 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 Krueger v. MacDougald · Lefkoff v. Sicro · Crawford v. Wilson · 19 Ga. App. 401 - Napier v. Strong · DeNieff v. Howell
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in violation of its reasonable and necessary intendment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Witnesses are not expected to be as definite and precise as a pleader must be, and there is authority to the effect that an oral agreement to adopt may be shown by the acts, conduct, and admissions of the parties, and that in order to establish such a contract, the exact word `adopt' need not be used. See in this connection, 2 C.J.S. 396, § 26; Remmers v. Remmers (Mo.) 239 S. W. 509 ; Taylor v. Coberly, 327 Mo. 940 ( 38 S. W. 2d, 1055 ); Lynn v. Hockaday, 162 Mo. 111 ( 61 S. W. 885 , 85 Am. St. R. 480 ); Parks v. Burney, 103 Neb. 572 ( 173 N. W. 478 ); Lamb v. Feeham (Mo.) 276 S. W. 71 . "In the instant case, the proof did not depend entirely upon the testimony of the witness Bryan. There was, as we have indicated, much additional evidence, relating to statements of the Tolers, the conduct and apparent relations as between them and the child, and other circumstances corroborating his testimony, and pointing toward the conclusion that there was an agreement to adopt. Considering the evidence as a whole, we think that the jury were authorized to find that there was such a contract. Nor, in so holding, do we overlook the rule that in such a case the alleged agreement must be proved so clearly, strongly, and satisfactorily as to leave no reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ware v. Martin“A parol obligation by a person to adopt the child of another as his own, accompanied by a virtual though not a statutory adoption, and acted upon by all parties concerned for many years and during the obligor’s life, may be enforced in equity upon the death of the obligor, by decreeing the child entitled as a child to the property of the obligor, undisposed of by will.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sanders v. Riley
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.