Brinkley v. King
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Michael H. v. Gerald D.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Little v. StreaterSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- In the Interest of J.W.T.Texas Supreme Court · 1994
- John M. v. Paula T.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Cairgle v. AMERICAN R. AND SS CORP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.