Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 207 Okla. 1 - Woods v. State

Woods v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
January 2008
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 2008

7 state decisions

20195219601970198019902000decided

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 Kingsbury v. Buckner · Franklin v. Margay Oil Corp. · Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Foster · McCloy & Trotter v. Arnett · Echols v. Reeburgh

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

  1. “"It is undoubtedly the rule in Illinois, as elsewhere, that a next friend or guardian ad litem cannot, by admissions or stipulations, surrender the rights of the infant. The court, whose duty it is to protect the interests of the infant, should see to it that they are not bargained away by those assuming, or appointed to represent him. But this rule does not prevent a guardian ad litem or prochein ami from assenting to such arrangements as will facilitate the determination of the case in which the rights of the infant are involved.””
    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.