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 2 courts 1997–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brinkley v. Kinggreen2 sentences2024The Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court (“OAJC”), authored by Chief Justice Flaherty, initially opined that the presumption of paternity and the doctrine of paternity by estoppel embody the two great fictions of paternity law: “the presumption of paternity embodies the fiction that regardless of biology, the married people to whom the child was born are the parents; and the doctrine of estoppel embodies the fiction that, regardless of biology, in the absence of a marriage, the person who has cared for the child is the parent.” 701 A.2d at 180 . 2024Vargo, 940 A.2d at 464 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). “[T]he doctrine of estoppel embodies the fiction that, regardless of biology, in the absence of a marriage, the person who has cared for the child is the parent.” Brinkley v. King, 701 A.2d 176, 180 (Pa. 1997). | 7 | 8 |
Jones v. Trojakgreen2 sentences2001See Brinkley v. King, 549 Pa. 241, 249 , 701 A.2d 176, 180 (1997) (holding that the doctrine of estoppel embodies the fiction that, regardless of biology and the presumption of paternity, the person who has cared for the child is the child’s parent) and citations therein. ¶ 17 In Brinkley , the Court repeated that “under 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.” Id. (quoting Jones v. Trojak, 535 Pa. 95 , 634 A.2d 201 (1993)). ¶ 18 Similarly, in Freedman v. McCandl 2001See Brinkley v. King, 549 Pa. 241, 249 , 701 A.2d 176, 180 (1997) (holding that the doctrine of estoppel embodies the fiction that, regardless of biology and the presumption of paternity, the person who has cared for the child is the child’s parent) and citations therein. ¶ 17 In Brinkley , the Court repeated that “under 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.” Id. (quoting Jones v. Trojak, 535 Pa. 95 , 634 A.2d 201 (1993)). ¶ 18 Similarly, in Freedman v. McCandl | 2 | 3 |
Vargo v. Schwartzgreen1 sentence2024Vargo, 940 A.2d at 464 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). “[T]he doctrine of estoppel embodies the fiction that, regardless of biology, in the absence of a marriage, the person who has cared for the child is the parent.” Brinkley v. King, 701 A.2d 176, 180 (Pa. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Bowser v. Blomgreen2 sentences2012“An abuse of discretion is ‘[n]ot merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence of record.’ ” Id. (quoting Bowser v. Blom, 569 Pa. 609 , 807 A.2d 830, 834 (2002)). “[T]he doctrine of estoppel embodies the fiction that, regardless of biology, in the absence of a marriage, the person who has cared for the child is the parent.” Brinkley v. King, 549 Pa. 241 , 701 A.2d 176, 180 (1997). 2012“An abuse of discretion is ‘[n]ot merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence of record.’ ” Id. (quoting Bowser v. Blom, 569 Pa. 609 , 807 A.2d 830, 834 (2002)). “[T]he doctrine of estoppel embodies the fiction that, regardless of biology, in the absence of a marriage, the person who has cared for the child is the parent.” Brinkley v. King, 549 Pa. 241 , 701 A.2d 176, 180 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Freedman v. McCandlessgreen2 sentences2001See Brinkley v. King, 549 Pa. 241, 249 , 701 A.2d 176, 180 (1997) (holding that the doctrine of estoppel embodies the fiction that, regardless of biology and the presumption of paternity, the person who has cared for the child is the child’s parent) and citations therein. ¶ 17 In Brinkley , the Court repeated that “under 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.” Id. (quoting Jones v. Trojak, 535 Pa. 95 , 634 A.2d 201 (1993)). ¶ 18 Similarly, in Freedman v. McCandl 2001See Brinkley v. King, 549 Pa. 241, 249 , 701 A.2d 176, 180 (1997) (holding that the doctrine of estoppel embodies the fiction that, regardless of biology and the presumption of paternity, the person who has cared for the child is the child’s parent) and citations therein. ¶ 17 In Brinkley , the Court repeated that “under 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.” Id. (quoting Jones v. Trojak, 535 Pa. 95 , 634 A.2d 201 (1993)). ¶ 18 Similarly, in Freedman v. McCandl | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Hall v. Hall
green
1 sentence2017Id. ____________________________________________ 2 “The presumption of paternity and the doctrine of estoppel, therefore, embody the two great fictions of the law of paternity: the presumption of paternity embodies the fiction that regardless of biology, the married people to whom the child was born are the parents; and the doctrine of estoppel embodies the fiction that, regardless of biology, in the absence of a marriage, the person who has cared for the child is the parent.” Brinkley v. King, 701 A.2d 176, 180 (Pa. 1997) (plurality). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
K.E.M. v. P.C.S.
green
1 sentence2017The concepts are “fictions” in that they may contradict biological parentage, but they nevertheless determine the fact of legal parentage. -5- J-S87027-16 In K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 38 A.3d 798 (Pa. 2012), our Supreme Court explained the interplay between paternal estoppel and the best interests of the child at issue: [S]ubject to modest qualification, we join the sentiment expressed in an opinion authored by the late, Honorable William F. Cercone, as follows: Absent any overriding equities in favor of the putative father, such as fraud, the law cannot permit a party to renounce even an assumed duty | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Warfield v. Warfield
green
1 sentence2012“An abuse of discretion is ‘[n]ot merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence of record.’ ” Id. (quoting Bowser v. Blom, 569 Pa. 609 , 807 A.2d 830, 834 (2002)). “[T]he doctrine of estoppel embodies the fiction that, regardless of biology, in the absence of a marriage, the person who has cared for the child is the parent.” Brinkley v. King, 549 Pa. 241 , 701 A.2d 176, 180 (1997). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Fish v. Behers
green
2 sentences2001More recently, in Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523 , 741 A.2d 721 (1999), the Supreme Court affirmed its Anew that public policy demands that children have the right to certainty in their relationships with their parents, stating: Estoppel is based on the public policy that children should be secure in knowing who their parents are. 2001More recently, in Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523 , 741 A.2d 721 (1999), the Supreme Court affirmed its Anew that public policy demands that children have the right to certainty in their relationships with their parents, stating: Estoppel is based on the public policy that children should be secure in knowing who their parents are. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.