Commonwealth v. Addicks
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hiller v. Fausey (Pa. 2006)
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Spriggs v. Carson (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974)
- Commonwealth v. Strickland (Pa. Super. Ct. 1905)
- In re Barry (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1844)
- Haaland v. Brackeen (Supreme Court of the United States 2023)
- Haaland v. Brackeen (Supreme Court of the United States 2023)
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Lucas v. Kreischer (Pa. 1973)
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Fortunes v. Manos (Pa. Super. Ct. 1940)
- Commonwealth v. McFadden (Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas 1934)
- Swoyer v. Swoyer (Md. 1929)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Black v. Black (Pa. Super. Ct. 1922)
- United States ex rel. Schneider v. Sauvage (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania 1899)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Sage v. Sage (Pa. 1894)
- Merritt v. Swimley (Va. 1886)
- McGlennan v. Margowski (Ind. 1883)
- McKim v. McKim (R.I. 1879)
- In re Jackson (Mich. 1867)
- State ex rel. Sharpe v. Banks (Ind. 1865)
- Wand v. Wand (Cal. 1860)
- People ex rel. Ordronaux v. Chegaray (New York Supreme Court 1836)
- United States v. Bainbridge (United States Circuit Courts 1816)
- United States v. Bainbridge (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts 1816)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We have considered the law, and are of opinion, that although we are bound to free the person from all illegal restraints, we are not bound to decide who is entitled to the guardianship, or to deliver infants to the custody of any particular person. But we may in our discretion do so, if we think that, under the circumstances of the case, it ought to be done. For this we refer to the cases of The King v. Smith, 2 Stra. 982, and The King v. Delaval, 3 Burr. 1436. The .present case is attended with peculiar and unfortunate circumstances. We cannot avoid expressing our disapprobation of the mother’s conduct, although so far as regards her treatment of the children, she is in no fault. They appear to have been well taken care of in all respects. It is to them, that our anxiety is principally directed; and it appears to us, that considering their tender ,sige, they stand in need of that kind of assistance, which can .fee ¡afforded by none so well as a mother. It is on their ac
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.