Haden v. Eaves’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 1999 · most notably Collins on Behalf of Collins v. Tabet (1991), Wasson v. Wasson (1978)
36 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 Spotts v. Spotts · Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Foster · Bounds v. Carner · Hugh K. Gale Post No. 2182 Veterans of Foreign Wars v. Norris · 62 W. Va. 167 - Toothman v. Courtney
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . we fully approve the doctrine that courts of equity should not sit idly by and see guardians lose the estates of their wards through mistakes in judgment or neglect of their duties. We also approve the rule that a minor who has a case in court is represented not only by his guardian ad litem, but by the court itself. A guardian ad litem is an arm of the court whose function is to protect the ward, and a court must not permit its arm to strangle him. “Here we have a case where the interests of the minor and his father [who was the guardian ad litem] are separable; both have appealed and we see what we believe to be a serious error made in the case against the interests of the minor. We cannot in good conscience sit with folded hands, adopt the attitude of umpires in a contest between adults, apply our ordinary rules of civil procedure and say that because of a mistake of the guardian ad litem in trying the case on an erroneous theory the minor must lose all. . . .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Upon the question whether an infant party may complain in the appellate court of errors not objected to in the trial court, the authorities are not in accord. On the theory that the law jealously guards the rights of infants, .and that they are wards of the court .and are not to be prejudiced by any act or default of their guardian ad litem, the court being bound to protect their interest notwithstanding the failure of their guardian to do so, the better rule ■seems to be that the appellate court will protect the rights of infants, although no objection is made or exception is taken in the trial court.” 2”
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.