Clarkston v. Bridge

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a party could request a jury trial to determine paternity where a statute authorized a paternity suit but failed to specify whether a party could demand a jury
• stating “[cjlearly then, the URESA authorizes both the finding and the enforcement of duties of support which have not been previously established in another proceeding”
• legislative intent with respect to jury trial for URESA claims determined by resort to parallel, but more specific, statutes granting the right
• “When the legislature has not spoken on a particular issue which arises under a statute, it is our duty to determine their probable intent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).