Pinter v. Pinter’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2012
14 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 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. · Fairrow v. Fairrow · Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. Terre Haute Industries, Inc. · Mills v. Brown · Matter of Paternity of HJF
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“the party must establish that an unconscionable plan or scheme was used to improperly influence the court's decision and that such acts prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting its case or defense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“In this very unusual case, Joe affirmatively demonstrated that the relief he sought was necessary and just. The trial court should have granted his petition. * * * Joe's petition was based on newly discovered medical evidence proving that he could not be Joseph's father, rather than on a belated suggestion that there might have been insufficient evidence to prove paternity when the trial court entered its paternity determination. Furthermore, Joe did not seek the genetic testing because he wanted to stop paying child support. He sought the testing at his doctor's suggestion, after being informed that Joseph was experiencing symptoms of sickle cell anemia. * * * In light of the unusual way in which he stumbled upon medical evidence demonstrating that he was not [the child's father], eleven years was not an unreasonable amount of time after which to file a T.R. 60(B)(8) motion. The Court of Appeals relied on the underlying public policy that financial support should not be terminated if it is "firmly established." We agree that both the legislature's design of our dissolution statute and the available sociological evidence suggest the importance of stability in legally established relationships between parents and children. On the other hand, there is a substantial public policy, namely justice, which disfavors a support order against a husband who is not the child's father. A child born during marriage is presumed legitimate. This presumption is not conclusive although it may ”
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.