Johnson v. Norman’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Goodson v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. (1983), Scholler v. Scholler (1984)
83 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Stanley v. Illinois · Carrington v. Rash · Gomez v. Perez · Whitehead v. General Telephone Co. · 92 Wash. 2d 930 - State v. Douty
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'This court has consistently held that for a judgment or decree to be res judi-cate, or to operate as estoppel, there must be an identity of issues and an identity of parties or persons in privity with the parties. We have also held that the term 'parties' includes those who are directly interested in the subject matter of a suit, who have a right to make a defense, or who control the proceedings.' Whitehead v. Genl. Tel. Co. (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 108, 114 , 254 N.E.2d 10 . The minor child and the mother here clearly were not in privity. '[A] person is in privity with another if he succeeds to an estate or an interest formerly held by another.' - Whitehead, supra, at 115 , 254 N.E.2d 10 . Privity does not generally arise from the relationship between parent and child. Arsenault v. Carrier (Me.1978), 390 A.2d 1048, 1051 . The mother, in the instant cause, was suing on her separate claim, pursuant to the statutory remedy provided her. Although the mother's claim and the child's claim relate to the same subject matter, the claims are distinct. While the dismissal with prejudice barred the subsequent action of the mother, it in no way affected the child's separate action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“This language from Gomez has been interpreted by courts to mean that an illegitimate child has the same common law right to support from his father as a legitimate child, e.g., JMS v. Benson (App., 1979), 91 Wis.2d 526 , 283 N.W.2d 465, 471 ;[ [6] ] and that an illegitimate child has a right to bring an action to determine paternity regardless of the existence of an authorizing state statute, e.g., State v. Douty (1979), 92 Wash.2d 930, 934 , 603 P.2d 373 ; Wynn v. Wynn (Tex.Civ.App.1979), 587 S.W.2d 790, 793 . [ Johnson, supra at 189, n. 3 , 421 N.E.2d 124 . (Emphasis and footnote added).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[s]tatutory paternity proceedings under R.C. Chapter 3111 are designed to provide a remedy for the mother, not the child”
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.