Legal Opinion

Bahl v. Lambert Farms, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 24, 2003No. 117 MAP 2001PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice NIGRO.

This Court granted allowance of appeal to consider whether the Superior Court erred in concluding that under the circumstances of this intestate succession case, maternity by estoppel can be asserted against a third party. For the following reasons, we reverse.

The family saga giving rise to this dispute began with William Bahl (“William Sr.”) and his wife, Rose, who together owned a family farm in Forks Township, Sullivan County. William Sr. and Rose had six natural children—Zita, Genevieve, Geraldine, Francis, Joseph and Margaret. According to Genevieve, in 1921, when…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Brinkley v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  2. Jones v. TrojakSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. Fish v. BehersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Freedman v. McCandlessSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Arthur v. KucharSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In re Estate of HooperSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  2. T.E.B. v. C.A.B.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  3. J.F. v. D.B., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County2004
  4. Peters v. CostelloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  5. Peters v. CostelloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API