Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Raydel v. Raible

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court

Decided February 3, 1953No. 631251PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By NICOLA, J:

The action against the defendant was brought under favor of §8006-1 et seq GC. The complainant, Alice E. Raydel, an unmarried woman, alleged in her complaint that the defendant was the father of a child born to her on December 28th, 1949. The jury found the defendant guilty of being the putative father of said minor child, and this Court entered judgment on said verdict. The further duties of the Court are set forth in §8006-17 GC as follows:

“* * * if the child is alive the Court shall adjudge that he (the defendant) pay to the complainant such sum as the Court may find to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Berry v. ChaplinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  2. Arais v. KalensnikoffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Paxton v. PaxtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Andrade v. NewhouseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  5. Schallman v. HaasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Jelen v. PriceOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. Asbury United Methodist Church v. BowersOhio Court of Appeals · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API