Legal Opinion

DeAngelo v. Murray

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 11, 1994No. 161 E.D. Appeal Docket 1991PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NIX, Chief Justice.

Appellant, David Murray, appeals from the Order of the Superior Court which affirmed the Order of the Court of Common Pleas directing Appellee, Nancy DeAngelo, her child, and Appellant to submit to a third blood test in an effort to determine paternity. The issue in this case is whether the trial court properly ordered the third blood test. We hold that the third test was not properly ordered.

The facts are as follows. Ms. DeAngelo gave birth to Arden Ann DeAngelo and filed a complaint alleging Mr. Murray to be the father. Mr. Murray has maintained that he is not the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Koleski v. ParkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Mastromatteo v. HarkinsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Mitchell v. HopsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Paroby v. GodekSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Cable v. AnthouSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  2. Cable v. AnthouSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  3. H.Z. v. M.B.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  4. Cable v. AnthouSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. Cable v. AnthouSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API