Dunbar v. Hogan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The drafters of former Code § 20-49.1 adopted the provision that a sworn statement of paternity or the ninety-eight percent blood test results would have the same legal effect as a judgment of paternity in order to alleviate the backlog of child support cases by providing a means to expedite the paternity/support proceedings where fathers willingly acknowledged paternity, but contested support, custody, visitation or guardianship issues. See 1990 General Assembly, Summary of Legislative Proposal Priority 1, Department of Social Services, Legislative Draft File, House Bill 961 (1990). The statute was not intended to preclude, and did not preclude, a father from adjudicating paternity where there had been no prior adjudication, even when the blood test results showed a ninety-eight percent probability of paternity or where he may have acknowledged paternity under oath. The statute, as amended in 1990, was intended to permit parties who acknowledged paternity, or who did not dispute paternity and the blood test results showed a ninety-eight percent probability of paternity, to have support, visitation, and custody determined without having to fully litigate paternity. An order of support or custody or visitation entered pursuant to Code § 20-49.8 which is based on the sworn Declaration of Paternity or on the blood test results would, based on the provisions of former Code § 20-49.1, be res judicata or would collaterally estop the parties from relitigating the fact and issue of p”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Cooper-Loney

2. “A. The parent and child relationship between a child and a woman may be established prima facie by proof of her having given birth to the child, or as otherwise provided in this chapter. B. The parent and child relationship between a child and a man may be established by a written statement of the father and mother made under oath acknowledging paternity or subsequent genetic blood testing which affirms at least a 98 percent probability of paternity. Such statement or blood test result shall have the same legal effect as a judgment entered pursuant to § 20-49.8. In the absence of such acknowledgment or if the probability of paternity is less than 98 percent, such relationship may be established as otherwise provided in this chapter. Written acknowledgments of paternity made under oath by the father and mother prior to July 1, 1990, shall have the same legal effect as a judgment entered pursuant to § 20-49.8. C. The parent and child relationship between a child and an adoptive parent may be established by proof of lawful adoption.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Cooper-Loney

3. “Dunbar, unlike his counterpart in Slagle who wanted to use HLA test results disproving paternity to assail a prior adjudication that he was the fattier, has never had the issue of paternity “actually litigated” in a “court of competent jurisdiction.” The first occasion that he has been called upon to litigate the issue of his paternity was when [the mother] filed the petition for child support.... An order of support or custody or visitation entered pursuant to Code § 20-49.8 which is based on the sworn Declaration of Paternity ... would, based on the provisions of former Code § 20-49.1, be res judicata or would collaterally estop the parties from relitigating the fact and issue of paternity. However, where no judgment or order establishing parentage pursuant to Code § 20-49.8 has been entered based on the sworn Declaration of Paternity ... there has been no judicial determination of the fact or issue of paternity and the putative father may contest that issue in the support proceedings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Taylor