Knoeller v. Uihlein’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

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

1. “(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the effect of the order of adoption is to completely change the legal status of the adopted person from that of a child of the natural parents to that of a child of the adoptive parents; and to free the adopted person from all legal obligations to or on account of the natural parents, and vice versa. (2) If the adopted person is not survived by a spouse or by issue or by an adoptive parent and there is no heir or next of kin of the adoptive parents, the property of the adopted person shall descend and be distributed as though there had been no adoption. (3) If a parent of the person adopted is married to the adoptive parent the relation of the child to the natural parent is not altered by the adoption. (4) The adopted person does not lose the right to inherit from his natural relatives. (5) The adopted person shall inherit from his adoptive relatives in the same manner as from his natural relatives.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 184 Wis. 2d 492 - In Interest of Angel Lace M. · Estate of Rhodes

2. ““ ‘ There are many reasons why an adoption statute should be strictly construed to enforce the duties and obligations voluntarily assumed by adoptive parents and to protect the adopted child in those rights and privileges which the law intends to secure to him as the result of the adoption. These reasons, however, do not apply when the rights of those who were not parties to the adoption proceedings are involved. The status resulting from adoption proceedings is not a natural one. It is a civil or contractual status. One may have the right to assume the status of a father to a stranger of the blood, but he has no moral right to impose upon his brother the status of an uncle to his adopted son. As was said in Warren v. Prescott, 84 Me. 483, 487 , 24 Atl. 948 , 17 L. R. A. 435, 439: “By adoption, the adopters can make for themselves an heir, but they cannot thus make one for their kindred.” ’ Estate of Bradley, 185 Wis. 393, 396 , 201 N. W. 973 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Reinhart · Nielsen v. Marshall & Ilsley Bank

3. ““It is quite generally held by the courts, including that of Wisconsin, as we shall point out, and stated by the text writers, that when, in a will, provision is made for the child of some person other than testator and a child is adopted by that person after the death of testator, the adopted child is not, in the absence of contrary compelling circumstances, entitled to share in a gift to children or issue of the third person.” Uihlein, supra, page 176.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Young v. First Wisconsin Trust Co.