Ross v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

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

1. “Prior to the adoption of Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10-108 , this report would have been considered inadmissible hearsay, and in order to be admissible and fall into one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, certain foundational requirements must have been met. . . . The purpose of § 9-10-108 is to relax these foundational requirements and make it less difficult to introduce paternity testing results into evidence. However, to insure the reliability of this type of testing, the foundational prerequisites in the statute must be met. In light of the fact that recently developed genetic testing can, with a high degree of certainty, identify the father of a child and, thus, be viewed as conclusive by the fact-finder in paternity suits, we do not think that strict adherence to the statutory prerequisites is unreasonable.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boyles v. Clements · Bain v. State

2. “On April 7, 1988 blood specimens were received from the Poinsett County Child Support Enforcement Agency on Edwin Boyles (alleged father), Tammy Clements (presumed mother) and Michelle Pugh (child) for the purpose of paternity exclusion studies. Completed identification forms of all parties are in our files. * * * * The HLA data listed above indicates that Edwin Boyles cannot be excluded as a possible father of Michelle Pugh. * * * * The Red Cell data listed above indicates that Edwin Boyles cannot be excluded as a possible father of Michelle Pugh. Utilizing the HLA and Red Cell data, two calculations have been performed to determine the likelihood of paternity. The first calculation is the Probability of Paternity which computes the chances that a single sperm carrying all the necessary genes could be produced by the alleged father in contrast to the frequency in which a sperm might be produced by a random man. This is expressed as the percentage certainty. 100% would be equivalent to proof of paternity, 0 % would be equivalent to non paternity. A value of 50% would mean that the alleged father and the random man have an equal chance of being the biological father. In this case, the Probability of Paternity is 95.44 %. The next calculation, the Paternity Index, is a means of expressing the likelihood of paternity as a ratio. In this case, the Paternity index is 21 to 1. The likelihood of paternity based on the calculations according to verbal predicates assigned by Hummel is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boyles v. Clements

3. “(a)(1) Upon motion of either party in a paternity action, the trial court shall order that the putative father, mother, and child submit to blood tests or other scientific examinations or tests. . . . (2) The tests shall be made by a duly qualified expert or experts to be appointed by the court. (3) (A) A written report of the test results prepared by the duly qualified expert conducting the test, or by a duly qualified expert under whose supervision or direction the test and analysis have been performed, certified by an affidavit duly subscribed and sworn to by him or her before a notary public, may be introduced in evidence in paternity actions without calling the expert as a witness unless a motion challenging the test procedures or results has been filed within thirty (30) days of the trial on the complaint and bond is posted in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of the duly qualified expert to appear and testify. (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bain v. State