6 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Paternity of SRIgreen2 sentences1996Conversely ... "there is a substantial public policy which favors a support order against a man who is a child's father." In re Paternity of S.R.I., Ind. App., 588 N.E.2d 1278 , 1281 (Staton, J., dissenting). *163 S.R.I., 602 N.E.2d at 1016 . [10] The Court did not identify what additional interests should be considered when the child was born during the marriage of the mother and presumptive father and their marriage is intact at the time of the paternity challenge. 1995S.R.I., 602 N.E.2d at 1016. 10 The Court did not identify what additional interests should be considered when the child was born during the marriage of the mother and presumptive father and their marriage is intact at the time of the paternity challenge. | 1 | 2 |
Marriage of Turner v. Turnergreen1 sentence2014See Turner, 785 N.E.2d at 262 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Paternity of JCgreen1 sentence2012See In re J.C., 819 N.E.2d at 527-28 (finding abuse of discretion where trial court ignored best interest standard in ordering change of child’s last name). 8 At the paternity hearing, the following colloquy took place concerning the change of B.G.’s last name: THE COURT: Okay. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Michael H. v. Gerald D.
green
2 sentences1996Presumably, because support of the child is not an issue when the marriage remains intact, the reason for allowing the paternity action to proceed is not as compelling. [11] The public policy reasons for protecting the integrity of an intact family against attacks from third parties relating to the paternity of a child born during the marriage were discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 , 109 S.Ct. 2333 . 1996Presumably, because support of the child is not an issue when the marriage remains intact, the reason for allowing the paternity action to proceed is not as compelling. [11] The public policy reasons for protecting the integrity of an intact family against attacks from third parties relating to the paternity of a child born during the marriage were discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 , 109 S.Ct. 2333 . | 2 | 1995–1996 |
Marriage of Cooper v. Cooper
green
1 sentence2006After determining that the father was a proper party and the paternity claim was timely asserted, [12] we looked at the language of the statute dealing with blood testing in paternity actions"[u]pon the motion of any party, the court shall order all of the parties to the action to undergo blood testing"and held that the "use of the word `shall' indicates that the trial court ha[d] no discretion in deciding to order the tests." Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In Re Paternity of SRI
green
1 sentence1996Conversely ... "there is a substantial public policy which favors a support order against a man who is a child's father." In re Paternity of S.R.I., Ind. App., 588 N.E.2d 1278 , 1281 (Staton, J., dissenting). *163 S.R.I., 602 N.E.2d at 1016 . [10] The Court did not identify what additional interests should be considered when the child was born during the marriage of the mother and presumptive father and their marriage is intact at the time of the paternity challenge. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United Taxi Co., Inc. v. Dilworth
neutral
2 sentences1975In this, I believe the following testimony of record is of crucial import: "He [Defendant] said he didn't want [an attorney] because he wasn't the father of this child and he could prove it himself." NOTES [1] United Taxi Company v. Dilworth (1939), 106 Ind. App. 627 , 20 N.E.2d 699 . [2] TR 59(A)(2) allows as ground for appeal "accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against". 1975In this, I believe the following testimony of record is of crucial import: "He [Defendant] said he didn't want [an attorney] because he wasn't the father of this child and he could prove it himself." NOTES [1] United Taxi Company v. Dilworth (1939), 106 Ind. App. 627 , 20 N.E.2d 699 . [2] TR 59(A)(2) allows as ground for appeal "accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against". | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Moe v. Koe
green
1 sentence1975In this, I believe the following testimony of record is of crucial import: “He [Defendant] said he didn’t want [an attorney] because he wasn’t the father of this child and he could prove it himself.” Note. — Reported at 330 N.E.2d 761 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.