State Ex Rel. Krupke v. Witkowski’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently November 2010
20 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 Stanley v. Illinois · Kleindienst v. Mandel · Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Fiallo Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Bell · Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Proceedings to enforce the obligation of the father shall not be brought after the lapse of more than two years from the birth of the child, unless paternity has been judicially established, or has been acknowledged by the father in writing or by the furnishing of support.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Plaintiff contends that the meaning of chapter 675 has been clarified by the legislature since the Jensen decision was rendered through enactment of The Child Support Recovery Act, 66 G.A. (1975 Session), chapter 151, now codified at chapter 252B, 1977 Code. Section 5 of that Act provides, inter alia, that the child support recovery unit established by the Act shall provide the following services: “2. Aid in establishing paternity and securing a court order for support pursuant to chapter six hundred seventy-five (675) of the Code. “3. Aid in enforcing through court proceedings an existing court order for support issued pursuant to chapters two hundred fifty-two A (252A), five hundred ninety-eight (598), and six hundred seventy-five (675) of the Code.” Plaintiff argues this statutory language manifests a legislative intent that the legislature intended chapter 675 to provide for two causes of action — one to establish paternity, the other to enforce the obligation. We disagree. We believe when the two statutes are properly read together in light of the foregoing principles the Jensen rationale becomes even more persuasive. Chapter 252B establishes no new theories of child support recovery but merely creates a vehicle to establish paternity under chapter 675 and enforce existing court orders for support previously entered in chapters 252A, 598, 675 proceedings. Plaintiff’s argument seeking to circumvent section 675.33 is without merit. Also see Annot., Statute of Limitations i”
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.