Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Itä-Suomen HO 26.03.1981 TU-669/80 AI generated

Court rejects paternity claim based on alleged sperm donor status despite prior DNA evidence.

Case Number Itä-Suomen HO 26.03.1981 TU-669/80
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the appeal against a confirmed paternity judgment, upholding the lower court's finding that the appellant was the biological father. Although the appellant admitted to having had sexual relations with the child's mother during conception, he argued that another man might also have been the donor. The court rejected this contention, ruling that the established paternity judgment remained legally binding and conclusive. Consequently, the claim that the appellant was merely a potential sperm donor was not supported by the evidence or legal standards.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Isyyslaki 1977; 1 §: The court's paternity judgment is binding and conclusive; a subsequent claim that the appellant was merely a potential sperm donor is inadmissible without new evidence overturning the original finding.

Keywords

AI generated
paternity judgment sperm donor claim binding court decision genetic evidence appeal dismissal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Isyyslaki 1977

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1979-II-30
Ks. KKO:1979-II-30, vrt. KKO:1979-II-45.
KKO:1979-II-45
Ks. KKO:1979-II-30, vrt. KKO:1979-II-45.
I-SHO:n T:TU-584/79
myös I-SHO:n T:TU-584/79.
AI generated
kko-precedent_1990_121
Supreme Court allows paternity claim where combined DNA and anthropological evidence proves 99.5% probability despite unknown second partner.
kko-precedent_1991_53
Supreme Court remands paternity case for additional investigation after finding lower court failed to question alleged fathers.
kko-other_2018_2097
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding refusal to grant leave to appeal a custody decision for a child.
kko-other_2002_3169
Supreme Court allows appeal against lower court's refusal to permit amendment of trial arguments.
admin_1991_turku-and-pori-county__543
Spouse of non-father guardian kept as party in custody case; appeal on standing rejected.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A oli KO:ssa häntä vastaan ajetussa isyyden vahvistamista koskevassa jutussa myöntänyt maanneensa alaikäisen lapsen B:n äidin lapsen siittämisaikaan, mutta väittänyt, että B:n äidin oli lapsen siittämisaikaan maannut myös C, joka siten saattoi tulla kysymykseen lapsen isänä. KO, joka oli toimituttanut A:sta, B:stä ja B:n äidistä ns. laajemman veriryhmätutkimuksen, oli vahvistanut lapsen isäksi A:n.

Ks. KKO:1979-II-30, vrt. KKO:1979-II-45.

Ks. myös I-SHO:n T:TU-584/79.

Aho - Leino: Oikeuslääkinnällinen isyystutkimus, 1977, ss. 14, 61-62, 72, 78, 91, 93, 107, 115-116, 129

Rautiala: Isyyslaki, 1977, ss. 50-52

Aho - Kataja: Veritutkimukset ja uusi isyyslaki I -

II, LM 1975, ss. 597-615 ja 972-983, erityisesti ss.

598, 600, 979-982

Aho - Raekallio: Isyyden määrittäminen, DL 1976, ss. 343-360, erityisesti ss. 348-350, 359

Uotila - Kataja: Isyyden selvittämisessä käytettävistä

oikeuslääketieteellisistä tutkimusmenetelmistä, LM

1976, ss. 360-383, erityisesti ss. 367, 381, 382

Pohjoismainen ohje isyysveritutkimusten oikeudellista

arviointia varten, LM 1981, ss. 67-72

Lainvoimainen