Dm v. Ch

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court did not err in denying a T.R. 41(E) request to dismiss because the motion was filed after plaintiff had resumed prosecution of the matter by requesting a trial date
• evidence that mother had sexual intercourse with father during a period ranging from eleven to seven months before child's birth was sufficient to uphold paternity determination
• evidence that child was born on September 1, 1969 and that the mother had regular sexual intercourse with the putative father in October, November and December of 1968 and January and February of 1969 held sufficient to support a determination of paternity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).