Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2008 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Warfield v. Warfieldgreen2 sentences2008As the Superior Court has observed, the doctrine of es-toppel in paternity actions is aimed at ‘achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father, to their prior conduct regarding paternity of the child.’ Wieland v. Wieland, 948 A.2d 863, 869 (Pa.Super.2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Warfield v. Warfield, 815 A.2d 1073, 1076 (Pa.Super.2003)). ¶ 25 The doctrine of paternity by estoppel has been applied by courts to prevent putative fathers who hold themselves out as the fathers of their children from subsequently denying their parentage. 2008As the Superior Court has observed, the doctrine of es-toppel in paternity actions is aimed at ‘achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father, to their prior conduct regarding paternity of the child.’ Wieland v. Wieland, 948 A.2d 863, 869 (Pa.Super.2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Warfield v. Warfield, 815 A.2d 1073, 1076 (Pa.Super.2003)). ¶ 25 The doctrine of paternity by estoppel has been applied by courts to prevent putative fathers who hold themselves out as the fathers of their children from subsequently denying their parentage. | 4 | 4 |
Fish v. Behersgreen2 sentences2003As the Superior Court has observed, the doctrine of es-toppel in paternity actions is aimed at “achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father, to their prior conduct regarding paternity of the child.” Warfield v. Warfield, 815 A.2d 1073, ¶ 8 (Pa.Super.2003) (quoting Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523 , 741 A.2d 721, 723 (1999)). 2003As the Superior Court has observed, the doctrine of es-toppel in paternity actions is aimed at “achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father, to their prior conduct regarding paternity of the child.” Warfield v. Warfield, 815 A.2d 1073, ¶ 8 (Pa.Super.2003) (quoting Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523 , 741 A.2d 721, 723 (1999)). | 3 | 5 |
Freedman v. McCandlessgreen2 sentences2006As the Superior Court has observed, the doctrine of es-toppel in paternity actions is aimed at “achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father, to their prior conduct regarding the paternity of the child.” Id., at 532-33. 2003As the Superior Court has observed, the doctrine of es-toppel in paternity actions is aimed at “achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father, to their prior conduct regarding the paternity of the child.” Id., 559 Pa. at 528 , 741 A.2d at 723 (quoting Freedman v. McCandless, 589 Pa. 584, 591-92 , 654 A.2d 529, 532-33 (1995)). | 3 | 4 |
Conroy v. Rosenwaldgreen2 sentences2008See Conroy v. Rosenwald, 940 A.2d 409 (Pa.Super.2007); Weidman v. Weidman, 808 A.2d 576 (Pa.Super.2002). 2008See Conroy v. Rosenwald, 940 A.2d 409 (Pa.Super.2007); Weidman v. Weidman, 808 A.2d 576 (Pa.Super.2002). | 2 | 2 |
Wieland v. Wielandgreen2 sentences2008As the Superior Court has observed, the doctrine of es-toppel in paternity actions is aimed at ‘achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father, to their prior conduct regarding paternity of the child.’ Wieland v. Wieland, 948 A.2d 863, 869 (Pa.Super.2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Warfield v. Warfield, 815 A.2d 1073, 1076 (Pa.Super.2003)). ¶ 25 The doctrine of paternity by estoppel has been applied by courts to prevent putative fathers who hold themselves out as the fathers of their children from subsequently denying their parentage. 2008As the Superior Court has observed, the doctrine of es-toppel in paternity actions is aimed at ‘achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father, to their prior conduct regarding paternity of the child.’ Wieland v. Wieland, 948 A.2d 863, 869 (Pa.Super.2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Warfield v. Warfield, 815 A.2d 1073, 1076 (Pa.Super.2003)). ¶ 25 The doctrine of paternity by estoppel has been applied by courts to prevent putative fathers who hold themselves out as the fathers of their children from subsequently denying their parentage. | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. Trojakgreen2 sentences2006In Jones v. Trojak, 535 Pa. 95, 105-06 , 634 A.2d 201, 206 (1993), this Court discussed the issue of estoppel where the mother of a child sought support from a third party, not her husband, whom she claimed was the father of the child: [Ujnder certain circumstances, a person might be estopped from challenging paternity where that person has by his or her conduct accepted a given person as the father of the child. 2006In Jones v. Trojak, 535 Pa. 95, 105-06 , 634 A.2d 201, 206 (1993), this Court discussed the issue of estoppel where the mother of a child sought support from a third party, not her husband, whom she claimed was the father of the child: [Ujnder certain circumstances, a person might be estopped from challenging paternity where that person has by his or her conduct accepted a given person as the father of the child. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weidman v. Weidman
green
2 sentences2008See Conroy v. Rosenwald, 940 A.2d 409 (Pa.Super.2007); Weidman v. Weidman, 808 A.2d 576 (Pa.Super.2002). 2008See Conroy v. Rosenwald, 940 A.2d 409 (Pa.Super.2007); Weidman v. Weidman, 808 A.2d 576 (Pa.Super.2002). | 2 | 2008–2008 |