Legal Opinion · Dissent

Witso v. Overby

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 7, 2001No. C6-99-1618Published

1DissentLancaster, Justice

Because the majority has fundamentally misconstrued the Minnesota Parentage Act and reached a result not contemplated by the statute, I respectfully dissent. As I *70read Minn.Stat. § 257.57, subd. 1(a) (2000), Benjamin Witso has no standing to bring a cause of action to challenge James Over-by’s marital presumption of paternity. Furthermore, absent a presumption in Witso’s favor, he cannot bring suit to declare his own paternity under Minn.Stat. § 257.57, subd. 2(1) (2000). Neither Minn. Stat. § 257.60 (2000) (discussing who may be party to an action but not addressing who has standing to bring…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Michael H. v. Gerald D.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. In Re Marriage of RossSupreme Court of Kansas · 1989
  3. Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed DistrictSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
  4. B.H. v. K.D.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Matter of Paternity of JAVSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API