Department of Revenue v. Goulbourne

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that order requiring paternity blood testing failed to comport with rule 1.360, where only matter pending before court was repayment of past public assistance debt and motion for contempt for failure to make support payments
• quashing trial court order requiring paternity testing because of prior adjudication: “Absent a showing of fraud upon the court, a paternity order is res judicata on the issue of paternity and re-litigation of paternity issues would be unauthorized . . . .”
• quashing trial court order requiring paternity testing because of prior adjudication: “Absent a showing of fraud upon the court, a paternity order is res judicata on the issue of paternity and re-litigation of paternity issues would be unauthorized . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).