Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 499 SW2D 490 - In Re L____

In Re L____’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
3
states following
April 2003
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently April 2003 · most notably O_F_L v. M_R_R (1974), In Re the Marriage of Badalamenti (1978)

25 state decisions

1701973198019902000decided

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 Monroe v. United States · State v. Spica · Shibley v. United States · Baker v. Baker · E_ M_ R v. G_ E_ R

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

  1. “"We are presented in this case with the ancient presumption that a child born in wedlock is presumed to be legitimate, which defendant is asserting for his own purposes rather than those of the child. At common law the presumption was conclusive and therefore a rule of substantive law. Today the presumption is rebuttable, an evidentiary presumption, and is overcome by a showing of substantial evidence (`clear, cogent and convincing proof') to the contrary. [Citation omitted.] Upon presentation by the party against whom the presumption operates of substantial evidence to rebut the presumption, the existence or non-existence of the fact once presumed is to be determined from the evidence as if no presumption had ever been operative in the case."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “rebuttable, an evidentiary presumption, and is overcome by a showing of substantial evidence (“clear, cogent and convincing proof”) to the contrary.... Upon presentation by the party against whom the presumption operates of substantial evidence to rebut the presumption, the existence or non-existence of the fact once presumed is to be determined from the evidence as if no presumption had ever been operative in the case.”
    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.