Hendricks v. Curry’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Herrera v. Herrera (1966), Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Heim (1976)
48 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 Legate v. Legate · State Ex Rel. Wood v. Deaton · Gillian v. Day · Dewitt v. Brooks · Dunn v. Jackson
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Voluntary abandonment, as used in the adoption statute, does not include an act or a course of conduct pursued by a parent which is done through force of circumstances or dire necessity, but it is used more in a sense of a wilful act or course of conduct, and such as would imply a conscious disregard or indifference to such child in respect to the parental obligation that the parent owes to such child. * * * ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. McLin · Whitehead v. Lout““These provisions do not contemplate that an adjudication may be based solely upon conditions which existed in the distant past but no longer exist.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) A parent’s consent to adoption can be withdrawn at any time before an adoption decree is entered. (2) A parent’s written consent to adoption and delivery of possession of the child to the proposed adoptive parents does not, per se, constitute “abandonment” within the meaning of article 2330. (3) “Abandonment,” as used in article 2330, means “a wilful act or course of conduct, [and implies] a conscious disregard or indifference to such child in respect to the parental obligation that the parent owes to such child.” (4) A child is not abandoned or deserted by its parent, within the meaning of the statute, where the parent consents to adoption and delivers possession of the child to the adoptive parents “for the purpose of better providing for the child’s welfare.” (5) “The term ‘parental care’ as used in the statute is purely descriptive; it refers to the kind and quality of care which should be, and ordinarily is, provided by parents ‘Parental care’ may be provided by persons who occupy a parental position in the life of a child, either permanently or temporarily.” (6) An adjudication that a child is dependent or neglected may not be based solely upon conditions which existed in the distant past but no longer exist.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hogan v. Roop
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.