Doak v. Milbauer’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Tobin v. Flynn & Larsen Implement Co. (1985), Flora Ex Rel. Flora v. Escudero (1995)
28 state decisions
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 Gomez v. Perez · Mills v. Habluetzel · Pickett v. Brown · State v. Evans · 168 W. Va. 455 - State Ex Rel. SMB v. DAP
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The plain words of § 43-1402 require that an out-of-wedlock child be supported by its father “to the same extent and in the same manner” as a child bom in wedlock. A parent is required to provide his or her child with the basic necessities of life. ... It is obvious that such a requirement must begin at the time of the child’s birth, for it is at that time that a child is most helpless and most dependent upon its parents for the child’s very survival. . . . When paternity is legally established, there is no rational basis to distinguish the support obligations of a father to a child born out-of-wedlock from the support obligations of a father to a child born in wedlock, and an out-of-wedlock child should be entitled to support from its father from the time of birth under the provisions of § 43-1402. We can perceive of no other way in which an out-of-wedlock child whose paternity is legally established could be supported by its father “to the same extent and in the same manner” as a child bom in wedlock.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[e]ven if the statute were subject to the construction that the child’s, as well as the mother’s, action is barred 4 years after the child’s birth, and we believe it is not, it would be our obligation to adopt the constitutional construction we suggested earlier.... We need not, and therefore do not, determine at this time what is recoverable by whom once paternity is established. It is sufficient to observe for the present that, for example, the owner of the right to recover for past medical expenses is different than the owner of the right to receive future support from his natural father.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A civil proceeding to establish the paternity of a child may be instituted, in any district court of the district where the child is domiciled or found, by (1) the mother or the alleged father of such child, either during pregnancy or within four years after the child’s birth ... or (2) the guardian or next friend of such child within eighteen years after the child’s birth.”
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.