Legal Opinion

Bednarik v. Bednarik

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided October 15, 1940PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

IIeer, A. M.

Petitioner’s petition for divorce against defendant on the ground of adultery has been met by an answer denying his charges and by a counter-claim seeking a decree of divorce against him. Petitioner alleges that a child born to defendant on August 27th, 1938, is not his child. This charge is specifically denied by the answer. Petitioner’s present application, made before reference under rule 128e, is based upon an affidavit in which he sa3^s: “As the parentage of said child is involved in this suit Í feel that it is absolutely essential to the trial of the same, that one or more…

2Cases cited48 opinions

  1. Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Weeks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  3. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  4. Olmstead v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  5. Gouled v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Doe v. PoritzSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1995
  2. Gill v. Curtis Publishing Co.California Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Cortese v. CorteseNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
  4. Fretz v. AndersonUtah Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Mahne v. MahneSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1974

18 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