Evans v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) In general. — The General Assembly finds that: (1) this State has a duty to improve the deprived social and economic status of children born out of wedlock; and (2) the policies and procedures in this subtitle are socially necessary and desirable. (b) Purpose. — The purpose of this subtitle is: (1) to promote the general welfare and best interests of children born out of wedlock by securing for them, as nearly as practicable, the same rights to support, care, and education as children born in wedlock; (2) to impose on the mothers and fathers of children born out of wedlock the basic obligations and responsibilities of parenthood; and (3) to simplify the procedures for determining paternity, custody, guardianship, and responsibility for the support of children born out of wedlock. (c) Establishment of paternity. — Nothing in this subtitle may be construed to limit the right of a putative father to file a complaint to establish his paternity of a child.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Mulligan v. Corbett · 198 Md. App. 38 - Corbett v. Mulligan

2. “The majority has simply changed the law in a particular class of cases. The motivation for this departure apparently is the desire to avoid a result which the majority perceives as an evil, to be rectified by judicial fiat, namely the declaration that a man, other than a married woman’s husband, is the father of her child. Because the determination of the identity of the natural father of this child could lead to the natural father having some rights with respect to that child, and because such rights may impinge upon the “integrity of familial relationships already formed,” the majority has reconstructed the principles which govern the resolution of disputes. Normally a dispute is resolved after the relevant facts are ascertained and the pertinent law is applied. Under the majority’s construction, in this limited class of cases, sometimes the most relevant facts will not be ascertained in order to prevent an unsatisfactory resolution of the dispute. The father may bring an action to determine paternity but, in some cases, may not have access to the most germane evidence available to resolve this dispute, namely the results of the blood tests.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Mulligan v. Corbett

3. “In general. — On the motion of the Administration, a party to the proceeding, or on its own motion, the court shall order the mother, child, and alleged father to submit to blood or genetic tests to determine whether the alleged father can be excluded as being the father of the child.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 198 Md. App. 38 - Corbett v. Mulligan