Nordgren v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
716 F.2d 1335 · 1983
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 2021
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 655 (§ 455 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Gideon v. Wainwright · Stanley v. Illinois · Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County North Carolina · Lehr v. Robertson
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“its admission as evidence presumably would be error prejudicial to the defendant”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f the blood tests fail to rule out the accused man difficult legal, medical, and scientific questions may arise in the trial. The putative father may wish to challenge the testing procedures or the validity of the results. Such challenge can involve investigation of the procedures, presentation of expert testimony, cross-examination of the [SJtate’s experts, and sophisticated legal arguments on admissibility. ... A man accused as a father and not eliminated by blood tests may rely on an alibi defense or on a defense based on the existence of other potential fathers. These defenses may require pretrial investigation and discovery.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“interest in monetary savings cannot outweigh the strong private interests of the putative father, the shared interests of the parties, and the substantial procedural fairness achieved [by providing court-appointed counsel to the indigent putative father].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.