W. v. W.’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
4 district · 77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Smith v. Smith (1999), Torres v. City of Waterbury (1999)
4 district · 77 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 Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of Manchester · Willow Springs Condominium Ass'n v. Seventh BRT Development Corp. · Weisman v. Kaspar · Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Walsh · Miller v. Miller
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Estoppel rests on the misleading conduct of one party to the prejudice of the other.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“[E]quitably estopping parents from denying parenthood is an extraordinary measure because it involves a judicially created imposition of the parental status . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he natural parent invoking the doctrine [must] establish that, if the stepparent is not estopped, the children will suffer future financial detriment as a result of the stepparent's past active interference with the financial support by the child's natural parent . . . It is imperative for the stepparent to have taken positive steps of interference with the natural parent's support obligations in order for the court to bind the stepparent to support the children in the event of a divorce . . . Future economic detriment is established, for instance, whenever a custodial parent proves that he or she (1) does not know the whereabouts of the natural parent; (2) cannot locate the other natural parent; or (3) cannot secure jurisdiction over the natural parent for valid legal reasons, and that the natural parent's unavailability is due to the actions of the stepparent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.