Fuller v. Fuller’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Knill v. Knill (1986), T... v. T... (1976)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 49 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 189 Cal. App. 2d 658 - Clevenger v. Clevenger · Niewiadomski v. United States · Goldbaum v. United States · 58 Wash. 2d 510 - Taylor v. Taylor · Ford v. Donahue
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]o matter what the beliefs of the parties [including the child] may have been, [the putative father] did not, by taking the child into the family circle, effect an adoption of her, thereby imposing upon him the attendant continuing obligation of support and entitling the child to certain other legal rights.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[It] 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. R. D. S. v. S. L. S. · Rds v. Sls“The status assumed by one in loco par-entis is a “somewhat nebulous legal relationship of a temporary character dependent on the intention of the party assuming the obligations of a parent.” The continuance of that relationship is a matter which lies within the will of one standing in loco parentis and may be abrogated by him at any time. It differs from adoption in that it is strictly temporary in nature, rather than permanent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re K.J.
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.