Heirich v. Howe’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 1994 · most notably Barwin v. Reidy (1957), Nevelos v. Railston (1959)
31 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 Matter of Cozza · Ex parte Clark · Hahn v. Sorgen · In Re McGrew · Rahn v. Hamilton
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * the Supreme Court of the State of Washington in the case of Knight v. Gallaway, 42 Wash. 413 , 85 P. 21, 22 , held that the lower court had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for the adoption of a child by persons not inhabitants of the county in which the application was made.. “And in Re McGrew (Appeal of Gilbert), 183 Cal. 177 , 190 P. 804, 805 , the court held that under a statute similar to ours, the cohrt of the county in which the person desiring to adopt the child resides is the only court which has jurisdiction to declare and order an adoption. The court said: “ ‘The statute provides that one who desires to adopt a child may, “for that purpose, petition the superior court of the county in which the petitioner resides,” and it also declares that, if the persons whose consent is necessary are not residents of said county, their written consent may be procured, and must be filed in the superior court of the said county at the time of the application of adoption. Civ. Code, § 226. This means that the court of the county in which the person desiring to adopt the child resides is the only county which has jurisdiction to declare and order an adoption. The proceeding for adoption is a special one, and the requirements of the statute must be strictly construed, particularly with respect to the jurisdiction of the court. Ex parte Clark, 87 Cal. (638), 640, 25 P. 967 ; (In re) Estate of Williams, 102 Cal. (70), 77, 36 P. 407 , 41 Am. St. Rep. 163 , (In re) Estate o”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Helscel
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.