Reid v. Frazee’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2024
16 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 City of Fayetteville v. Edmark · Franklin v. Healthsource of Arkansas · Zgleszewski v. Zgleszewski · Swaffar v. Swaffar · Matter of Adoption of Lybrand
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Swaffar v. Swaffar, 309 Ark. 73, 80 , 827 S.W.2d 140, 144 (1992), the Arkansas Supreme Court cited the jurisdictional requirement of consent and that “the consent of the person to be adopted, as required by statute, must not be presumed.” The court emphasized that it was the total lack of evidence of consent in the record, that resulted in the probate court’s lack of jurisdiction. The court in Swaffar simply recognized that with no evidence of consent in the record, the court could not substantiate the probate court’s jurisdiction over the minor to, be adopted. See id. at 79-80 , 827 S.W.2d at 144 ; see also In re Adoption of Lybrand, 329 Ark. 163 , 946 S.W.2d 946 (1997) (finding suggestion that probate court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction for lack of strict compliance with the adoption statutes was not valid . where cases addressed jurisdiction of the person). Similarly, the consent and knowledge of the adoptive parent must not be presumed. In stark contrast to Swaffar, however, the record in this case provides ample evidence of knowledge and consent. [The petitioner] appeared before the judge and under oath verified the allegations in the petition. He presented additional testimony about himself, his concern for the child’s welfare, and his commitment to providing for the child financially' and emotionally; The evidence concerning [the petitioner’s] knowledge and participation in the adoption proceeding was before the court, and the probate judge did not abuse his di”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lagios v. Goldman
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.