Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 99 CALAPP2D 748 - In Re Barents

In Re Barents’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
2
states following
January 1977
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 1977

19 state decisions

80195019601970decided

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 Matter of Cozza · Krause v. Rarity · In re the Estate of Stevens · Estate of Sharon · In re Estate of Williams

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

  1. ““Responsive to the need for legislative action our Legislature has from the earliest years of statehood provided a statutory plan whereunder adoptions could be carried out. A fundamental requisite has always been the consent of the parent or parents entitled to the custody of the child and charged with the duties of caring for it. As was said by the Supreme Court in Matter of Cozza, 163 Cal. 514, 522 [ 126 P. 161 , Ann.Cas. 1914A 214] : “ ‘. . . Consent lies at the foundation of statutes of adoption, and under our law this consent is made absolutely essential to confer jurisdiction on the superior court to make an order of adoption, unless the conditions or exceptions exist specially provided by the statute itself and which render such consent o£ the parents unnecessary. Unless such consent is given, or, for the exceptional causes expressly enumerated is dispensed with, the court has no jurisdiction in the matter. ’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Suppose here, for instance, that after consent and before adoption the natural father should come forward and marry the child's mother, as the mother here alleges is their mutual intent, thus legitimating the infant, such legitimation, considering its effect on the child's welfare alone, might persuade the court that adoption should not be ordered. In saying this we do not pass upon the question of whether such marriage during adoption proceedings would make it jurisdictional that the consent of the natural father should then be secured, as was held in In re Adoption of Doe [ infra ] ... since that question is not before us.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The welfare of the child can never be excluded from the issues, no matter what preliminary action its parent or parents may have taken. The changed conditions of either the proposed adopters or of the consenting parents may heavily weight the scales for or against the granting of the petition.”
    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.