Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Brinkley v. King

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 17, 1997No. 15 W.D. Appeal Docket 1996Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partNewman, Justice

I concur in the Majority’s conclusion that the presumption of paternity does not apply to this case, but I write separately to express my view that we must expand the factors available to rebut the presumption, particularly because of the accuracy and reliability of blood testing to determine paternity.

*257I also respectfully dissent from the Majority’s decision to remand this case for a determination of the estoppel issue. The evidence clearly indicates that neither the mother nor the husband is estopped from challenging the husband’s paternity because neither held Audrianna out as a child of…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Michael H. v. Gerald D.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Little v. StreaterSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. In the Interest of J.W.T.Texas Supreme Court · 1994
  4. John M. v. Paula T.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. Cairgle v. AMERICAN R. AND SS CORP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951

17 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