Legal Opinion

L.A.W. v. M.E.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided April 3, 1992No. 89-873PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KING, Associate Judge:

Appellant was brought before the trial court on a petition to establish paternity and provide support for the minor child of appellee pursuant to D.C.Code § 16-916(c)(1989). Appellant was represented by counsel and appellee was represented by the Office of Corporation Counsel pursuant to D.C.Code § 16-2341(a)(1989). On June 29, 1989 the parties appeared before Judge Michael Rankin, who made oral findings that appellant was the father of the child and that he owed a duty to support the child.

The matter was then referred to Hearing Commissioner Dennis Doyle to set the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. District of Columbia v. DavisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978
  2. McDiarmid v. McDiarmidDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Burtoff v. BurtoffDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978
  4. Speight v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
  5. Arlt v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Davis v. DavisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. Camalier & Buckley, Inc. v. Sandoz & Lamberton, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. Davis v. DavisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API