Wright v. Oliver’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably 85 Ohio App. 3d 179 - Park v. Ambrose (1993), 95 Ohio App. 3d 451 - Seegert v. Zietlow (1994)
50 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 Mills v. Habluetzel · Pickett v. Brown · Connin v. Bailey · Johnson v. Norman · Thirty-Four Corp. v. Sixty-Seven Corp.
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[L]aches may be applicable in parentage actions filed prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, but only if the defendant can show material prejudice. The unavailability of witnesses and incurrence of obligations do not materially prejudice the defendant on the facts of this case." Wright v. Oliver (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 10 , 12 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“While the unavailability of witnesses could possibly result in some prejudice to Oliver, he has not been materially prejudiced. The unavailable witnesses could probably comment on their observations with respect to Leatha Wright's and Oliver's relationship, but they obviously could not conclusively state that Wright and Oliver did not engage in sexual intercourse during the probable time of Andrea's conception absent twenty-four-hour-a-day contact. Furthermore, Oliver cannot claim his case has been so materially prejudiced by the passage of time as to require dismissal of the action on the basis of laches when he has available to him highly reliable, accurate and accepted scientific tests that can exclude practically all men wrongfully accused of being the father of the child.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The issue presented in this cause is whether the equitable doctrine of laches is available to prevent the prosecution of a parentage action brought within the statute of limitations. We hold that laches may be available as a defense in a parentage action if the defendant can show he was materially prejudiced by the delay. “The statute of limitations for commencing a parentage action is five years after the child reaches the age of eighteen. R.C. 3111.05. This suit was brought when [the child] was seven years old. Thus, it is undisputed that it was filed well within the statute of limitations.” (Emphasis added and footnote omitted.) Id. at 11 , 517 N.E.2d at 884-885 .”
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.