Berry v. Chaplin’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 141 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 152 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably 54 Cal. 2d 603 - Kusior v. Silver (1960), 31 Cal. 2d 586 - Vaughn v. Jonas (1948)
3 federal appellate · 141 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Estate of Bristol v. Young · Treadwell v. Nickel · Berry v. Chaplin · Newport v. Hatton · In re the Estate of Jessup
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 152 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is the duty of the guardian and the attorney to protect the rights of the minor, and it is the duty of the court to see that such rights are protected”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The guardian ad litem and her attorneys were without power to enter into and the court was without power to approve the stipulation. Section 196a of the Civil Code provides that a civil suit in behalf of a minor illegitimate child to enforce the obligation of a parent to support it may be maintained by a guardian ad litem and in such action the court has power to order and enforce the performance of such obligation. The power of a guardian ad litem in such an action is not unlimited. In effect the court is the guardian, and the person named as guardian ad litem is an officer of the court appointing him and is the agent of the court. ‘He is like an agent with limited powers.’ (Cole v. Superior Court, 63 Cal. 86 , 89 [ 49 Am.Rep. 78 ].) A minor, who must of necessity appear by his guardian, is not bound by the admissions of the guardian which mean the sacrifice or giving away of the ward’s property. (Kidwell v. Ketler, 146 Cal. 12, 18 [ 79 P. 514 ]. See also, Waterman v. Lawrence, 19 Cal. 210, 217 [ 79 Am. Dec. 212 ].) The relationship between a guardian ad litem or the attorney whom he employs and the minor is not the same as that between an attorney and an adult client. It is the duty of the guardian and the attorney to protect the rights of the minor, and it is the duty of the court to see that such rights are protected. The court may set aside or disregard concessions of the guardian which have not already been judicially approved and which are shown to the court to have b”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The effect of the stipulation in question here was to rest the final judgment and the determination of the rights of the unborn infant solely upon the unverified report of two physicians. This was an attempt to deprive the court of the power to receive any evidence concerning the paternity of the child other than the report of the physicians, and to make conclusive that which has not been declared by the Legislature to be conclusive (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1837, 1978), and which the Supreme Court of this state has expressly declared is not conclusive. (Arais v. Kalensnikoff, 10 Cal.2d 428, 432 [ 74 P.2d 1043 , 115 A.L.R. 163 ].)” (Berry v. Chaplin, supra, 74 Cal.App.2d 652, 658-660 .)”
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.