United States Supreme Court
491 U.S. 110 (1989)
Gerald D. (defendant) and Carole D. were married in 1976 in Las Vegas and resided together in California. In 1978, Carole became involved in an adulterous affair with a neighbor, Michael H. (plaintiff). In 1980, she conceived a child, Victoria. Soon after delivery, Carole informed Gerald that Michael might actually be the father of Victoria, at which point Michael and Carole each took DNA tests showing that there was a 98.7% chance that Michael was Victoria’s father. Soon after, Gerald and Carole separated, and Carole took up residence with a third man and rebuffed Michael’s attempts to visit Victoria, who he strongly believed to be his daughter. Although Michael filed an action in California Superior Court to establish his paternity and grant him visitation rights, the case was withdrawn after Carole started seeing Michael again and signed an agreement stipulating that Victoria was their daughter. Carole later reconciled with Gerald and went to live with him again with Victoria. In 1984, however, Michael and Victoria, through her guardian ad litem brought another action to establish paternity and visitation rights for Michael. Gerald intervened and moved for summary judgment on the ground that under California law, there were no triable issues of fact regarding Victoria’s paternity as California law provided that “the issue of a wife cohabitating with her husband, who is not impotent or sterile, is conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage.” Later in 1985, the California Superior Court granted Gerald’s motion for summary judgment and rejected Michael and Victoria’s motions for continued visitation. Michael claimed that the law at issue denied him an opportunity to establish his paternity and violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. A California court of appeals upheld the constitutionality of the California law, and Michael appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
Concurrence (O’Connor, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Brennan, J.)
Dissent (White, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 203,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.