McLean v. McLean’s Empirical Analysis
1914
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 1988
14 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.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Illegitimate children] shall also inherit from the father whenever they have been recognized by him as his children; but such recognition must have been general and notorious, or else in writing.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““These are questions of fact for the determination of the jury under proper instructions as to what constitutes a general and notorious recognition of the relation of father and son on the part of the father.” (p. 329.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is especially urged that the court erred in permitting several witnesses to testify that there was a general rumor and understanding in the Kentucky neighborhood among the neighbors and friends of the decedent that he was the father of the child; also in permitting the witnesses for the defense to be asked, over appellants’ objection, if such rumor and understanding did not exist in the neighborhood. It is urged that this is hearsay, but the fact, if if is a fact, that a rumor of this character prevailed in the neighborhood at about the time the birth occurred is some evidence that the decedent knew thereof. As said in the Iowa cases cited, the existence of such a rumor is a matter for consideration by the jury, and especially if it is a general rumor and understanding, it is natural that the person, if falsely implicated therein, would take some pains to deny it or disprove it.” (See, also, Smith v. Smith, 105 Kan. 294, 296 , 182 Pac. 538 ; Nolting v. Holt, 113 Kan. 495, 496 , 215 Pac. 281 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.