Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cable v. Anthou

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 11, 1996No. 1409Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDel Sole, Judge

While I agree with my esteemed colleagues that the the trial court erred by awarding Appellee an additional buccal *558swab paternity test without proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the initial test was defective, I must dissent from the Majority’s interpretation of DeAngelo v. Murray, 536 Pa. 206, 638 A.2d 966 (1994).

The Majority states that the Supreme Court did not consider the Fourth Amendment interest in reaching its decision in DeAngelo. DeAngelo cites Koleski v. Park, 363 Pa.Super. 22, 525 A.2d 405 (1987), which stated:

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Koleski v. ParkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. DeAngelo v. MurraySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API