Cox v. Wrinkle’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably Susan E. Morrow, an Incompetent v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., a Corporation, Susan E. Morrow, an Incompetent v. Douglas H. Huber (1976), Dickerson v. St. Louis Public Service Company (1956)
4 federal appellate · 29 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 Hamre v. Conger · Spotts v. Spotts · Hoelzel v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. · Tracy v. Martin Ex Rel. Gunn · Reineman v. Larkin
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If there is no duly appointed guardian or curator, the parent is ordinarily a proper person for appointment as a guardian ad litem, but not always. A parent, of course, generally has the interests of his child at heart. This does not mean a parent in all cases is qualified to represent his child in litigation. So it seems to us that, all related statutes considered, the legislature intended that the regular guardian or curator, that is, the guardian or curator duly, legally or regularly appointed by the probate court, has the duty to represent his ward as defendant in all legal proceedings, § 457.420 [RSMo 1949], and if an infant defendant has no regular guardian, then the circuit court, upon being advised of the infancy of such defendant, has the duty to appoint a guardian ad litem, § 507.190 et seq., ...” Id. (citations omitted) (some emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * In cases cited herein by the defendant-respondent Wrinkle it has been expressed that the appointment of a guardian ad litem is ‘mandatorily required’, Tracy v. Martin, supra; that the statute, now § 507.190, supra is ‘very positive in its requirement,’ Charley v. Kelley, 120 Mo. 134 , 25 S.W. 571, 573 ; and that the court has the ‘absolute duty’ to appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant defendant (Fenn v. Hart Dairy Co., 231 Mo.App. 1005 , 83 S.W.2d 120 ). The appointment of a guardian ad litem is not a bare technicality and that office does not involve only perfunctory and shadowy duties. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“. . . A guardian is to do for the infant what with riper judgment he would do for himself . . .”
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.