In re J.D.’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2022
6 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 Sullivan v. People ex rel. Heeney · 84 Ill. 2d 323 - In Re Roger B. · Gebhardt v. Warren · 141 Ill. App. 3d 871 - Street v. Hubert · 258 Ill. App. 3d 954 - People v. Angela S.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in the Noes' home. She argued that J.D.'s adoption was invalid because Joyce's surrender of her parental rights was subject to an oral agreement with DCFS to allow Jane to adopt J.D. The trial court dismissed the petition because Jane did not have standing to seek J.D.'s custody and could not collaterally attack the adoption judgment. This appeal followed. II. ANALYSIS A. Jurisdiction Jane characterizes the adoption judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction. She argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction because J.D. was not”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“as required by DCFS regulations (89 Ill. Adm.Code § 337.120 (1996) (effective July 1, 1995)); (2) DCFS did not follow its policy and custom of staying all actions regarding a child pending a foster parent's administrative appeal; (3) she was not notified of any proceedings in the juvenile court that terminated her visitation rights; (4) DCFS refused to return J.D. to her care unless she admitted spanking him; (5) a juvenile court judge asked counsel for DCFS to seek advice from DCFS' regional counsel about how to expedite or”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“as defined in section 1(B) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(B) (West Supp.1997)). Accordingly, she would not have needed to allege in her petition that she had custody of J.D. or that DCFS consented. See 750 ILCS 50/5(C) (West 1998). Thus, Jane cannot attack the adoption judgment without seeking to void or revoke Joyce's surrender. However, she does not have standing to do so. When contesting the validity of adoption proceedings,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.