Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 345 Pa. Super. 155 - Faust v. Messinger

345 Pa. Super. 155 - Faust v. Messinger’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
7
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

52 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Hede v. Gilstrap (2005), Kepple v. Fairman Drilling Co. (1992)

52 state decisions

21019851990200020102020decided

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 Fuentes v. Shevin · Cave's Estate · Matter of Adoption of Christopher P. · Commonwealth ex rel. Dogole v. Cherry · 534 F. Supp. 385 - Ingram v. O'BANNON

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

  1. “[t]he entire body of law pertaining to adoption harmonizes in order to place an adopted child in the shoes of a natural child in all legal respects[.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he entitlement claimed by appellant .does not amount to one which must be protected by the due process clause. It is an entitlement only to seek visitation which will be granted or denied as the best interests of the child dictate, 23 P.S. §§ 1012,1014. Prior to his adoption, while the statute entitled her to do so, appellant did not institute an action for visitation of her grandson, nor does she explain her failure to do so. Even if she had obtained a visitation order prior to the adoption proceeding, however, she would stand in the same position. Under the CGVA, both the incipient right to seek visitation and any visitation rights already established by court order are extinguished upon the adoption of the child, 23 P.S. § 1015. Such evanescent rights, first protected by statute in 1982, 23 P.S. § 1001 et seq., are not ones which activate the procedural protections of the due process clause. The limited, transitory nature of grandparental visitation privileges set forth in the statute convinces us that the privileges may properly be terminated in an adoption, just as all familial ties between an adoptee and other blood relatives are severed, without notice and without hearing.”
    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.