Michelle W. v. Ronald W.
California Supreme Court
1DissentBird, C. J.
I respectfully dissent. The application of the conclusive presumption of paternity (Evid. Code, § 621) to deny plaintiff, Donald R., the *366opportunity to prove that he is Michelle’s biological father denies him due process of law. (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (a).)
In upholding the presumption here, the majority purport to weigh the competing private and public interests as required by In re Lisa R. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 636, 648-651 [119 Cal.Rptr. 475, 532 P.2d 123, 90 A.L.R.3d 1017] and Estate of Cornelious (1984) 35 Cal.3d 461, 467 [198 Cal.Rptr. 543, 674 P.2d 245].…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Stanley v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Shelley v. KraemerSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Ex Parte VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Palmore v. SidotiSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Palmer v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.