326 Pa. Super. 95 - Smith v. Beard’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2023
11 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 305 Pa. Super. 179 - Corra v. Coll · 310 Pa. Super. 178 - Worley v. Augustine · 295 Pa. Super. 146 - Bigham v. Wenschhof · 288 Pa. Super. 567 - Mansfield v. Lopez · Hughes v. Hutt
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f any party refuses to submit to such tests, the court may resolve the question of paternity, parentage or identity of a child against such party, or enforce its order if the rights of others and the interests of justice so require”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) If the action seeks support for a child born out of wedlock and the reputed father is named as defendant, the defendant may acknowledge paternity in a verified writing substantially in the form provided by Rule 1910.28(a). In that event the action shall proceed as in other actions for support. (b) If the reputed father does not execute an acknowledgement of paternity, the conference officer shall terminate the conference. The conference officer shall advise the parties that there will be a trial without jury on the issue of paternity unless within ten days after the conference either party demands a trial by jury as provided by Rule 1910.28(b).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This Commonwealth’s petition practice affords a responding party with notice and an opportunity to be heard before a rule absolute is entered. The appellant simply did not avail himself of this right. As such, the lower court had before it an unanswered petition which alleged the appellant’s refusal to submit to HLA testing. The lower court was entitled to find that the appellant, in fact, refused to appear. Under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6133, the court could therefore “resolve the question of paternity” against the appellant.”
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.