Legal Opinion

State, Ex Rel. Pula v. Beehler

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided March 26, 1985No. C6-84-1484PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NIERENGARTEN, Judge.

The State of Minnesota commenced a paternity action against respondent Mark Beehler alleging that Beehler was the father of Pamela Pula’s child. A jury returned a special verdict for Beehler. The trial court denied Pula’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, alternatively, for a new trial. We affirm.

FACTS

On July 23, 1981, appellant Pamela Pula, then age 17, and respondent Mark Beehler then 15 years old, engaged in their sole act of sexual intercourse. No birth control devices were used. According to Pula, her last menstrual period was July 11. On…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hertz v. HertzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  2. LaValle v. Aqualand Pool Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  3. Eilola v. Oliver Iron Mining Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
  4. Jurgensen v. Schirmer Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  5. Maras v. StilinovichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. HagenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
  2. Johnson v. Van BlaricomCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
  3. Aitkin County Family Service Agency ex rel. Wiebrand v. GanglCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
  4. Omlid v. LeeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API