Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 245 SW2D 341 - Jones v. Willoughby

Jones v. Willoughby’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
February 1962
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. United States · Walling v. Fairmont Creamery Co. · Reynolds v. Needle · Fletcher v. Evening Star Newspaper Co. · Parmelee v. Chicago Eye Shield Co.

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

  1. ““This, the 24 day of October, 1961, in the above entitled and numbered cause, came on to be heard Plaintiff’s motion for Summary judgment, * * whereupon the Court proceeded to consider such Motion, and the Court having heard and considered same, * * is of the opinion and hereby finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact existing between the parties; that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and that Plaintiffs’ Motion should be and is hereby in all things granted and sustained; and that the Judgment of Adoption heretofore entered by this Honorable Court on the 3rd day of October, 1960, in Cause No. 60 — 1850—J on the Docket of this Court should be in all things set aside and held for naught. “IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby in all things granted and sustained; “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the Judgment of Adoption heretofore granted and entered by this Honorable Court on the 3rd day of October, 1960 in Cause No. 60-18S0-J on the Docket of this Court is hereby set aside and same shall be of no further force and effect and is hereby in all things held for naught; “AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Defendants here, Joseph C. Camp and Hazel M. Camp, do not stand in the relationship of adoptive parents as to the minor children herein, being SUE ELLEN SCOTT, NORMA JOE SCOTT AND CHARLOTTE JEAN SCOTT, minors. ”
    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.