Rydberg v. Rydberg’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Alameda County Social Services Agency v. Kimberly H. · 97 Cal. App. 4th 716 - San Frnacisco Department of Human Services v. Raphael P. · 28 Cal. 4th 56 - In Re Nicholas H. · Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. J. R. · Owens v. State
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Construing Section 14-17-05(7 )(b), N.D.C.C., to provide an independent affirmative defense to putative fathers in Gary’s position would be contrary to legislative intent and public policy. The overriding public policy of the Uniform Parentage Act is to protect the interests of the child. See Comment to Uniform Parentage Act § 6. It was not the intent of the Legislature in enacting the five-year limitation period under Section 14-17 — 05(Z )(b), N.D.C.C., to provide putative biological fathers with a shield to avoid their duty to support their children.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cudworth
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.