Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 236 Md. 241 - Corley v. Moore

Corley v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
3
states following
December 1999
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently December 1999 · most notably Brown v. Brown (1980), Anderson v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (1987)

40 state decisions

1601964197019801990decided

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 Braverman v. Bar Assn. of Balto. · Tellez v. Canton Railroad Co. · Simmons v. Director of Patuxent Institution · McCabe v. McCabe · Peters v. District of Columbia

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

  1. ““Under the old law, now repealed, neither the wife, the husband, nor the paramour was competent to testify as to nonaccess. See Clark v. State, 208 Md. 316, 321 , et seq., where Judge Hammond for the court in an able and exhaustive opinion traces the evolution of the so-called ‘Lord Mansfield rule’. * * * Clearly, the rule is relaxed under the new law.” “We find no requirement in the statute [§ 66 F] that proof of nonaccess must be clear and convincing, as the appellant contends. In this connection it may he noted that in the bill as introduced, the burden of proof was stated to be ‘to establish by evidence so clear, satisfactory and convincing as to raise in the mind of a reasonable and unprejudiced person a natural inference that the defendant is the father * * *.’ This was deleted in the passage of the bill, and the language quoted above was substituted. The only proof necessary is that the husband and wife are living separate and apart; it is not necessary to establish nonaccess. Once the fact is established that they are living separate and apart, the wife can testify as to nonaccess, or any other relevant fact. The burden of proof throughout is the same that is applied in other civil cases, to establish the ultimate fact of paternity, in issue under the pleadings, by a fair preponderance of affirmative evidence.” (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 244-246.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““When any bill or petition filed under this subtitle shall allege, or the court shall determine after the commencement of proceedings thereunder, that the child’s mother was married at the time of the child’s conception; the presumption that the child is the legitimate child of her husband may be rebutted by the testimony of persons other than the mother and her husband that, at the time the child was conceived, the mother was in fact living separate and apart from her husband, and it shall not be necessary to establish the nonaccess of the husband. After the court shall have determined that the child’s mother and her husband were not living together as man and wife when the child was conceived, both the mother and her husband shall be competent to testify as to the nonaccess of the husband when the child was conceived or to any other relevant matter.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Proceedings to establish paternity . . . and to charge the putative father of an illegitimate child or children with their support and maintenance shall be commenced during the pregnancy of the mother thereof or within two (2) years after the birth of such child or children; except that if the putative father of such child or children has acknowledged in writing the paternity of the child or children or has made payment or otherwise provided for the support and maintenance of the child or children, it is sufficient if the proceedings are commenced within two (2) years of the date of such acknowledgment or the last such payment or provision. . . .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.