# Murphy v. McCloud

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · December 1, 1994 · 650 A.2d 202

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728923

## Case

- **Full name:** Margaret P. MURPHY, Et Al., Appellants, v. LaShawn J. McCLOUD, Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** December 1, 1994
- **Citations:** 650 A.2d 202; 1994 D.C. App. LEXIS 227; 1994 WL 675063
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ferren
- **Judges:** Ferren, Steadman, Schwelb
- **Cited by:** 84 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728923

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728923. Public record. Not legal advice.