Thomas v. State ex rel. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Eisenstadt v. Baird · 459 So. 2d 836 - Home Indem. Co. v. Anders · State ex rel. Snow v. Armstrong · 504 So. 2d 282 - Williams v. State · 406 So. 2d 366 - Eagerton v. Gulas Wrestling Enterprises, Inc.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In all cases where the child has no presumed father. . . the sole limitation is imposed upon an action to determine paternity for the purpose of obtaining support which shall not be brought after the child attains age nineteen, § 26-17-8 (b), but § 26-17-6 (c) does not prescribe any limitation period for bringing an action to determine the existence of the father and child relationship. Williams v. State , 504 So.2d 282 (Ala.Civ.App. 1986). Thus, in effect, a paternity action may be instituted under § 26-17-6 (c) without limitation as to time, but child support cannot be awarded thereunder if the child attained his majority before the case was started."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“even an adult would have an interest in an adjudication of paternity for inheritance purposes, for obtaining knowledge of his heritage, and in order to have an accurate family medical history.”
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.