Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): requirement for personal jurisdiction over nonresidents was satisfied because defendant’s failure to pay child support came within the long-arm statute’s provision providing that a court may exercise limited jurisdiction over an individual when the individual causes "an act to be done, or consequences to occur, in the state resulting in an action for tort.” MCL 600.705(2); MSA 27A.705(2). Plaintiffs position is supported by Black v Rasile, 113 Mich App 601; 318 NW2d 475 (1980), lv den 411 Mich 987 (1981) (a paternity action), which adopted the position of other state courts interpreting the "tortious act” language of their state long-arm statutes. In particular, the Black Court adopted the rationale of an Illinois appeals court, Poindexter v Willis, 87 Ill App 2d 213; 231 NE2d 1 (1967) (<HOLDING>), as well as an Ohio court decision enforcing 
 Holding statements: (A) holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child (B) holding that the word tort is not technically construed and hence a fathers breach of the statutory duty to pay child support for his illegitimate child constitutes a tortious act within the meaning of the statute (C) holding that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child (D) holding that an illegitimate child is guaranteed a right of support from his father (E) holding that an outofwedlock childs pending claim for retroactive child support was nondischargeable in bankruptcy because a debt for child support arises upon the birth of the child and that the fact that no court had yet ordered the debtor to support the child does not take the debt outside the scope of 11 usc  523a5
Output (English): holding that an outofwedlock childs pending claim for retroactive child support was nondischargeable in bankruptcy because a debt for child support arises upon the birth of the child and that the fact that no court had yet ordered the debtor to support the child does not take the debt outside the scope of 11 usc  523a5