In Re MJS’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An adoption decree is presumed to be valid, and the person challenging it bears the burden of showing its invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. In the Matter of the Adoption of Christo pher P., 480 Pa. 79, 84 , 389 A.2d 94, 97 (1978); Singer Adoption Case, 457 Pa. 518, 522 , 326 A.2d 275, 277 (1974); Chambers Appeal, 452 Pa. 149, 152-153 , 305 A.2d 360, 362 (1973); [In re Adoption of List], 418 Pa. 503, 508-509 , 211 A.2d 870, 873-874 (1965). In [In re Adoption of List], supra, the Supreme Court listed five principles of law which are pertinent to a collateral attack on an adoption decree. In determining this appeal certain principles of law must be kept in mind: (1) an adoption decree entered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties is generally immune from collateral attack, particularly where the record shows a substantial compliance with the adoption statute; (2) where the record in the adoption proceedings affirmatively reveals a lack of jurisdiction, then the adoption decree is subject to collateral attack; (3) notice to a natural parent of the adoption proceedings and the consent of a natural parent, where necessary, are jurisdictional prerequisites in an adoption proceeding; (4) when an adoption decree is collaterally attacked, the entry of the decree raises a presumption of its validity and regularity and an implication arises that the court did find the necessary facts and did perform all the steps essential to the jurisdiction o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Adoption of Z.S.H.G.