394 Pa. Super. 411 - Scott v. Mershon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 36 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Therefore, both adherence to the presumption and application of estoppel lead to the same point: the blood test is no longer necessary, whatever the result may be, because legal paternity has been established, and biological paternity is simply no longer relevant.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 441 Pa. Super. 551 - Scott v. Mershon · 30 Pa. D. & C.4th 282 - Zakeosian v. Zakeosian

2. “§ 6133. Authority for test In any matter subject to this subchapter in which paternity, parentage or identity of a child is a relevant fact, the court upon its own initiative or upon suggestion made by or on behalf of any person whose blood is involved may, or upon motion of any party to the action made at a time so as not to delay the proceedings unduly, shall order the mother, child and alleged father to submit to blood tests. If any party refuses to submit to such tests, the court may resolve the question of paternity, parentage or identity of a child against such party, or enforce its order if the rights of others and the interests of justice so require. § 6136. Effect of test results If the court finds that the conclusions of all the experts as disclosed by the evidence based upon the tests are that the alleged father is not the father of the child, the question of paternity, parentage or identity of a child shall be resolved accordingly. If the experts disagree in their findings or conclusions, the question shall be submitted upon all the evidence. § 6137. Effect on presumption of legitimacy The presumption of legitimacy of a child born during wedlock is overcome if the court finds that the conclusions of all the experts as disclosed by the evidence based upon the tests show that the husband is not the father of the child.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 406 Pa. Super. 357 - Faust v. Faggart

3. “In John M., the Supreme Court decided that a man who alleged that he was the father of a child born during the marriage of the mother to another man (the "husband") had no right to compel the husband to undergo blood testing under the Act. The mother and her husband had always and were presently living together with the child in question and their other three children as an intact family. The court based its decision primarily on the fact that section 6133 of the Act only required that the court order blood testing of the mother, child and alleged father. In John M., the petitioner, who was not the mother's husband, sought to have the court order blood tests of the mother's husband, the presumptive father, for the purpose of disproving the husband's paternity.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 409 Pa. Super. 341 - Donnelly v. Lindenmuth