holding that the court had not decided whether it had jurisdiction over a certain type of case merely because it had reached the merits of a case without addressing—or being presented with—the jurisdictional issue
How later courts described this case
- holding that the court had not decided whether it had jurisdiction over a certain type of case merely because it had reached the merits of a case without addressing—or being presented with—the jurisdictional issue
- stating that prior case is not precedent on an issue " 'unless the judicial mind has been applied to and passed upon the precise question’ ” (quoting Fletcher v. Scott, 201 Minn. 609, 277 N.W. 270, 272 (1938))
- stating, in probate case, that prior decision resolving similar issue on merits did not resolve whether present case concerned final appealable order, an issue not raised in prior case
- holding probate order declaring that petitioner was daughter of intestate decedent was final appealable order even though administration of estate continued
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FERREN, Associate Judge,
concurring:
Because of the potential for fraud, I continue to believe that, absent a formal procedural determination of paternity, someone who claims to be a child of an intestate decedent, born out of wedlock, cannot establish that relationship by a preponderance of the evidence without “demonstrat[ing] that *221 the deceased, during his lifetime, openly, notoriously, and unambiguously acknowledged the child as his own.” In re Estate of Glover, 470 A.2d 743, 751 (D.C.1983) (Ferren, J., concurring); see ante note 17. Thus, I agree with reversal and am skeptical, to say the least, that appellees can prevail. I suppose that, contrary to my “bright line” views about such cases expressed in Glover, someone could posit facts where a claimant could establish paternity, after the father’s death, even though the putative father had not openly acknowledged fatherhood during his lifetime. But, in this case, where the trial judge found that George Cooper’s mother, Pearl Cooper, raised Mignon Cooper as her daughter, not as her granddaughter, and where there is no proffered reason (pertaining to Kathleen Hayes or otherwise) as to why George Cooper would not have acknowledged paternity of Mignon Cooper during his lifetime — if it were true — I see no basis for the trial court to find that Mignon Cooper was George Cooper’s daughter.