Barbara A. v. John G.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 90 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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In essence, Stephen was seeking damages for the `wrongful birth' of his child [footnote omitted] resulting in support obligations and alleged damages for mental suffering. Here, no child is involved; appellant is seeking damages for severe injury to her own body. Although the Stephen K. court alluded to Stephen's claim as separate and apart from the issue of either parent's obligation to raise and support the child, it reached its decision without attempting to resolve the problem of the mother's reduced financial ability to support the child if she were required to pay damages to the father. We think this concern over the child, and not governmental intrusion into private sexual matters, ... is the central issue in Stephen K. and compels different public policy considerations. [ 193 Cal. Rptr. at 429 .]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. C.A.M. v. R.A.W. · 237 N.J. Super. 532 - Cam v. Raw

2. “[California’s child support case law] imposes on the natural father as well as the natural mother of a child the obligation to give the child support and education suitable to his or her circumstances. To assess damages against the mother for false representations about birth control would have the practical effect of reducing or eliminating support from the father by way of offset. Erasing much or all of the father’s financial support, to the detriment of the child, is clearly against public policy and the statutory mandate. Further, we think it is not sound policy to allow one parent to sue the other over the wrongful birth of their child. Using the child as a damage element in a tor-tious claim of one parent against the other could seldom, if ever, result in benefit to a child. Such a lawsuit would indeed be strong evidence of parental rejection, which could only be emotionally detrimental to the child.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Poor v. Moore

3. “[t]he essence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship is that the parties do not deal on equal terms, because the person in whom trust and confidence is reposed and who accepts that trust and confidence is in a superior position to exert unique influence over the dependent party.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. in Re Daisy Systems Corporation