Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 586 So. 2d 1373 - Chatelain v. STATE, DOTD

586 So. 2d 1373 - Chatelain v. STATE, DOTD’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
states following
October 2012
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 2012

24 state decisions

120199120002010decided

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 Levy v. Louisiana Ex Rel. Charity Hospital · 329 So. 2d 437 - Louisiana State Bar Association v. Edwins · 452 So. 2d 1161 - Succession of Lyons · Taylor v. Allen · 456 So. 2d 594 - Teachers'retirement System v. La. St. Employees Retirement System

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

  1. “highly probable, i.e. much more probable than its non-existence.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence requires a party to persuade the trier of fact that the fact or causation sought to be proved is highly probable, i.e. much more probable than its non-existence.... This burden is an intermediate one between the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.... The requirement of proof by clear and convincing evidence has traditionally been applied in cases in which there is a special danger of deception or in which the particular type of claim is disfavored on policy grounds.... It is logical that a higher standard of proof should be required for both filiation and legitimation when the alleged parent is dead. Claims by an illegitimate child to the property of an alleged parent or to the status of a wrongful death beneficiary of the alleged parent, when not presented until after the death of the alleged parent, are replete with danger of fraud.... There is generally no less danger of deception when the illegitimate child is basing his claim on legitimation by subsequent marriage and informal acknowledgment, rather than on filiation.... Indeed, because there is no time limitation on asserting legitimation, the danger may be even greater.... [Citations and footnotes omitted.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “suffice to invest [James] with the title of a legally acknowledged ... child”
    2 later decisions 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.