Wolfe v. Geno

Michigan Court of Appeals

Wolfe v. Geno

122 Mich. App. 250

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 21, 1982

DocketDocket No. 59696

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 Mich. App. 250 (Wolfe v. Geno) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wolfe v. Geno, 122 Mich. App. 250 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff brought this paternity action against defendant on March 3, 1981, on behalf of her child, who was born on February 2, 1973. Defendant denied paternity and moved for accelerated judgment, raising the six-year statute of limitations, MCL 722.714(b); MSA 25.494(b). Following a hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff appeals as of right.

We reject plaintiff’s argument that the limitation period of the paternity act, six years, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the state and federal constitutions. Shifter v Wolf, 120 Mich App 182; 327 NW2d 429 (1982).

Further, under the clear language of the statute, an acknowledgment of paternity by a defendant must be "in writing” in order to toll the running of the limitation period. MCL 722.714(b); MSA 25.494(b).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff brought this paternity action against defendant on March 3, 1981, on behalf of her child, who was born on February 2, 1973. Defendant denied paternity and moved for accelerated judgment, raising the six-year statute of limitations, MCL 722.714(b); MSA 25.494(b). Following a hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff appeals as of right.

We reject plaintiff’s argument that the limitation period of the paternity act, six years, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the state and federal constitutions. Shifter v Wolf, 120 Mich App 182; 327 NW2d 429 (1982).

Further, under the clear language of the statute, an acknowledgment of paternity by a defendant must be "in writing” in order to toll the running of the limitation period. MCL 722.714(b); MSA 25.494(b).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 Mich. App. 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolfe-v-geno-michctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack