Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re the Estate of Jotham

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 12, 2006No. A05-438Published

1DissentGildea, Justice

I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that Barnett benefits from the presumption of paternity found in Minn. Stat. § 257.55, subd. 1(a) (2004). I depart from the majority in its conclusion that the presumption is conclusive. In my view, this construction is inconsistent with the Parentage Act. I would affirm the court of appeals.

The statute of limitations and standing requirements of Minn.Stat. § 257.57, subdivision 1(b) (2004), by the statute’s plain language, apply only to actions brought “[f]or the purpose of declaring the nonexistence of [a presumed] father and child…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  2. Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
  3. Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, VIN No. 2MEBP95F9CX644211, License No. MN 225 NSGSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
  4. Smith v. BarrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
  5. State v. E. A. H.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1956

4 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