Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Turner v. Whisted

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided June 22, 1992No. 52, September Term, 1991Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partEldridge, Judge

I concur with the Court’s judgment remanding this case for a determination of whether Mr. Turner is entitled to blood tests in order to establish his paternity. I do not agree, however, with the majority’s statement that when two men claim paternity of a child, their dispute is more appropriately resolved under the Maryland Code (1974,1991 Repl.Vol.), § 1-201 et seq. of the Estates and Trusts Article, rather than the Code (1984,1991 Repl.Vol.), § 5-1001 et seq. of the Family Law Article. In addition, I dissent from the Court’s position that Mr. Turner must prove that a declaration of…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Ross v. HoffmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
  2. Ross v. PickCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1952
  3. Cortese v. CorteseNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
  4. Bridges v. NicelyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
  5. Hutzell v. BoyerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969

10 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