§

In the Matter of W---- K---- S

5 I&N Dec. 232 (B.I.A. 1953)
In the Matter of W---- K---- S

11 Cited authorities

  1. Berry v. Chaplin

    74 Cal.App.2d 652 (Cal. Ct. App. 1946)   Cited 89 times
    Noting the guardian ad litem is both an officer and agent of the court

  2. State, ex Rel. v. Clark

    144 Ohio St. 305 (Ohio 1944)   Cited 39 times

    No. 30033 Decided December 27, 1944. Bastardy — Unmarried and pregnant woman may institute proceedings — Although child conceived during existence of lawful marriage — Section 12110, General Code — Child presumed legitimate, when — Presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, when — Blood-grouping test — Expert may testify that findings and result of test excluded paternity — Such testimony not conclusive as to nonpaternity — Plaintiff to prove nonpaternity of former husband by clear

  3. Ly Shew v. Acheson

    110 F. Supp. 50 (N.D. Cal. 1953)   Cited 18 times
    In Ly Shew v. Acheson, D.C., 110 F. Supp. 50, the trial court held that the burden upon such a claimant was heavier than the regular burden.

  4. Hill v. Johnson

    102 Cal.App.2d 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)   Cited 17 times
    In Hill v. Johnson, 102 Cal.App.2d 94 [ 226 P.2d 655], a filiation proceeding, this division held that admission of evidence of a blood test was reversible error in view of the conclusive presumption of legitimacy (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1962, subd. 5) where a husband and wife were living together.

  5. Lee Hong v. Acheson

    110 F. Supp. 60 (N.D. Cal. 1953)   Cited 14 times

    No. 30651. January 22, 1953. Jackson Hertogs, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff. Chauncey Tramutolo, U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., Charles Elmer Collett, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants. OLIVER J. CARTER, District Judge. Plaintiff has brought an action under the provisions of 8 U.S.C.A. § 903, seeking a judicial declaration that he is a citizen or a national of the United States. The original complaint named the Secretary of State as defendant upon the theory that such officer

  6. Saks v. Saks

    189 Misc. 667 (N.Y. Dom. Rel. Ct. 1947)   Cited 19 times

    July 18, 1947. Herman Brothers for petitioner. Edward V. Whiting for respondent. PANKEN, J. The problem presented in this proceeding is the determination of the paternity of the child, Karl Bernard. The testimony reveals that the parties were married on or about February 21, 1943. The child, Karl Bernard, was born to the petitioner on or about May 6, 1943, some ten or eleven weeks after the marriage ceremony. A child born in wedlock, whether it was conceived before or after the marriage ceremony

  7. Lee Bang Hong v. Acheson

    110 F. Supp. 48 (D. Haw. 1951)   Cited 13 times

    Civ. 1052. November 29, 1951. Sau Ung Loo Chan, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff. H.K. Hoddick, Acting U.S. Atty., and W.C. Ingman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendant. METZGER, District Judge. Findings of Fact 1. The Plaintiff was born in San Chin Village, Chungshan, Kwangtung, China on July 13, 1934. He is the blood son of Lee Chin Fat, a United States citizen, who was born in Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii. Lee Bang Hong is a United States citizen by birth by virtue of the fact that

  8. Cuneo v. Cuneo

    198 Misc. 240 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1950)   Cited 3 times

    April 24, 1950. Millard E. Theodore for plaintiff. Arnold S. Greene for defendant. GAVAGAN, J. This is an action to declare the marriage of the parties null and void. They were married in the city of New York on September 4, 1948. The gist of the action is the fraudulent and deceitful representations of the defendant (then a resident and citizen of Karbach, Germany) that plaintiff was the cause of her then pregnancy and was the father of her child. The evidence is clear and, in fact, admitted that

  9. Scalone v. Scalone

    199 Misc. 210 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1950)   Cited 1 times

    June 8, 1950. T. Bernard Eisenstein for plaintiffs. Ruth Gottdiener for defendant. EDER, J. Action for a declaratory judgment whereby plaintiffs seek a determination that the infant plaintiff Virginia Patricia Scalone is the daughter of the plaintiffs Eggers. The point made by the defendant that this court lacks jurisdiction to determine, in this action, the issue of paternity, is untenable ( Matter of Melis v. Department of Health, 260 A.D. 772, 775; Urquhart v. Urquhart, 185 Misc. 915, affd. 270

  10. Dellaria v. Dellaria

    183 Misc. 832 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1944)   Cited 4 times

    November 24, 1944. Joseph La Gattuta for plaintiff. Bernard Schwartz for defendant. SCHREIBER, J. Plaintiff brings this action against his wife for an absolute divorce and for a determination of the legitimacy of a child of the defendant born after the plaintiff and defendant had separated. Prior to their separation in November, 1940, one child, Guy, Jr., was born. After the parties had separated and on June 20, 1943, the defendant gave birth to another child. Thereafter the present action was instituted

  11. Section 601 to 605 - Repealed

    8 U.S.C. § 601 - 8 U.S.C. § 605   Cited 42 times

    8 U.S.C. § 601 to 605 June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title IV, §403(a)(42), 66 Stat. 280, eff. Dec. 24, 1952 Section 601, acts Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subch. II, §201, 54 Stat. 1138; July 31, 1946, ch. 708, 60 Stat. 721, related to persons born nationals and citizens. See section 1401 of this title. Sections 602 to 605, act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subch. II, §§202-205, 54 Stat. 1139, related to citizens by birth in Puerto Rico, Canal Zone or Panama, nationals but not citizens and children