Department of Human Resources v. Browning

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that in Roddenberry, “the Supreme Court recognized an extraordinary motion for new trial (based on newly discovered evidence) as a proper procedural vehicle for challenging a consent judgment which resolved issues of paternity and child support”
• construing “Petition for Blood Test” as extraordinary motion for new trial
• “[T]he doctrines of res judicata and estoppel by judgment are inapposite when ... a consent judgment is under attack via extraordinary motion for new trial [based on newly discovered evidence].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).