Williams v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2011
10 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 Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United North & South Development Co. · Pratt v. Texas Department of Human Resources · T.W.E. v. K.M.E. · Gardner v. Universal Life & Accident Ins. Co. · State v. Jones
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To satisfy the statutory requirement of six calendar months, Anderson must perforce resort to an interpretation of section 11.03(a)(8). He must argue for a judicial construction of the statute which holds one of two things: (1) that [former] section 11.03(a)(8) includes, by implication, a theory of constructive possession and control, so that Anderson may be said to have had ‘possession and control’ of the child, in legal contemplation, notwithstanding that the child in fact lived in Houston with his mother (who possessed all legal rights regarding the child) during the five or six weeks in August and September 1989; or (2) that the statute includes, by implication, a theory of cumulative months so that a total of six calendar months of ‘possession and control,’ accumulated over an unspecified period of time, will satisfy the statute even if, as here, there was no period of six consecutive calendar months. [[Image here]] Concerning the theory of constructive possession and control, we believe section 11.03(a)(8) explicitly rejects the theory by the statutory requirement of ‘actual possession and control.’ [Emphasis in original].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Doncer v. Dickerson“As ‘a person who has had actual possession and control of the child for at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition,’ a stepparent, or a disestablished presumed father, now has standing to sue under [former] Section 11.03(a)(8).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Doncer v. Dickerson
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.