504 So. 2d 282 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2003
15 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 Gomez v. Perez · Pickett v. Brown · Chandler v. Whatley · 21 Cal. App. 3d 870 - Perez v. Singh · 381 So. 2d 26 - Street v. City of Anniston
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellant’s argument that plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the equitable doctrine of laches can also be summarily dismissed. “Since an action to establish paternity raises legal, not equitable issues, laches may not be asserted as a bar to the proceedings. Perez v. Singh, 21 Cal. App.3d 870 , 97 Cal.Rptr. 920 (1971). In any event, the child’s right to support is deemed to be a continuing right, one that cannot become stale at least until the age of majority. See Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 , 93 S.Ct. 872 , 35 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973); Chandler v. Whatley, 238 Ala. 206 , 189 So. 751 (1939); Hamilton v. Hamilton, 428 So.2d 65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1983).””
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.