Strnad v. Strnad
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Greenberg, J.*
The court has assumed, for the purpose of this disposition in the light of the record and the concessions made by the defendant, that the plaintiff was artificially inseminated with the consent of the defendant and that the child is not of the blood of the defendant. Predicated on that assumption the court concludes as follows:
*787(1) The defendant is entitled to rights of visitation as heretofore . allowed, namely, every Sunday between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and during such visitations the child will be in the custody of the maternal grandmother. The additional…
2Cited by7 opinions
- People v. SorensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Gursky v. GurskyNew York Supreme Court · 1963
- In re the Adoption of AnonymousNew York Surrogate's Court · 1973
- C. M. v. C. C.Cumberland County Family Court · 1977
- Anonymous v. AnonymousNew York Supreme Court · 1964
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.