1. This case requires the Court to interpret several statutes. Which are they? The case also involves a procedural rule that differentiates the work of appellate courts from that of trial courts. What is that rule?
2. Which factual assertions about this dispute did the trial court accept as proved? Which factual assertions did it reject?
3. What are the social background facts at issue here? What choice did the appellate court have to make about social background facts in order to decide this case?
4. Does not the majority’s decision to reject the conclusive proof of the blood tests rest on some value choices? What values do you think are involved in this case? Does the Court articulate them? Does this decision depend on a religious conviction that God can always alter nature if God wishes? Or might the Court have believed that, in the interest of giving the child any father at all, it was best to assign paternity to Robert despite science?
5. Why was the law ambiguous in this case?
6. Do you find that the majority or the dissenting opinion does a better job of legal reasoning? Why?
7. How does this opinion change the law? That is, if the dissent had prevailed in this case, how would the reading of the rules of law at issue in this case change?
The case requires the court to interpret several statutes: (a), which states that in the case of deciding the legitimacy of a child, any person who denies their paternity right over the child in question must need to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the husband is not the father of the child. (b), which is related to the status of blood tests in civil actions. Considering the results of the blood tests as evidence in such cases wholly lies in the hands of the jury of the court. The ruling was to determine whether that the finding instituted rescindable error. Therefore, the appellant did not assert that Andy is the real father.
It held that either God, science, or the predictable trial court approaches of fact-finding would not be trusted. The judge stated the trial court’s choice to be ambiguous. Even though the tests showed Mr. Prochnow was not the father, the distrust in science and social background played a key role. Odd facts were existing in the case, which would sort it unjust to allow judgment. The Statutes of states used do not deliver for dispersed sentences.
Finally, no world court had the power to resolve the matter, law can either change or preserve the respective communities.