Lewis v. Petty

6 Citing cases

  1. Eldridge for Eldridge v. Sullivan

    980 F.2d 499 (8th Cir. 1992)

    Under Arkansas law in effect in 1977, the time of Leach's first application for benefits, Leach had to establish her sons' paternity by clear and convincing evidence. See Lewis v. Petty, 272 Ark. 250, 613 S.W.2d 585, 586 (1981); Lucas v. Handcock, 266 Ark. 142, 583 S.W.2d 491, 495-96 (1979). The statements submitted by Leach to support her claim of her children's paternity are self-serving and unpersuasive and fail to establish paternity by clear and convincing evidence.

  2. Henry v. Johnson

    292 Ark. 446 (Ark. 1987)   Cited 1 times

    During the decedent's lifetime there had been no legal proceeding to determine if the decedent was the father of the appellant. We considered a somewhat factually similar case in Lewis v. Petty, 272 Ark. 250, 613 S.W.2d 585 (1981). Although Lewis fell within the period of time between the decision of Trimble v. Gordon, 340 U.S. 762 [ 430 U.S. 762] (1979) [(1977)], which declared statutes similar to Ark. Stat. Ann. 61-141(d) to be unconstitutional, and the reenactment of the revised 61-141(d) (Act 1015 of 1979), the decision is persuasive.

  3. Petty v. Lewis

    285 Ark. 3 (Ark. 1985)   Cited 3 times

    Major Lewis, a cattleman who owned and operated a livestock auction barn in Conway, Arkansas, died in October, 1977. He had no lineal heirs other than the appellant, Mrs. Petty, who is his illegitimate daughter. The probate court declared her to be Major Lewis' heir, and we affirmed in Lewis v. Petty, 272 Ark. 250, 613 S.W.2d 585 (1981). Two days prior to Major Lewis' death, he held a sale at his barn.

  4. McFadden v. Griffith

    647 S.W.2d 432 (Ark. 1983)   Cited 8 times

    He denied having done anything at all for the child. In his argument for reversal the appellant cites cases such as Lewis v. Petty, 272 Ark. 250, 613 S.W.2d 585 (1981), where we held that one who claims to be the illegitimate child of a deceased person, and on that basis to share in the decedent's estate, must prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence. That standard of proof is required, however, because in such cases the death of the man charged with having fathered the claimant has deprived the estate of its most valuable witness.

  5. Roque v. Frederick

    272 Ark. 392 (Ark. 1981)   Cited 7 times
    In Roque v. Frederick, 272 Ark. 392, 614 S.W.2d 667 (1981), this court recognized that putative fathers enjoy some due-process and equal-protection rights, but there is no consideration of those rights by the majority in the present case.

    Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532 (1971); Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977). Arkansas had a similar law and we followed the Trimble decision in declaring the Arkansas law unconstitutional in Lucas v. Hancock, 266 Ark. 142, 583 S.W.2d 491 (1979); Frakes v. Hunt, 266 Ark. 13, 583 S.W.2d 497; and Lewis v. Petty, 272 Ark. 250 (1981). Fathers of illegitimate children do have certain rights.

  6. Ross v. Moore

    758 S.W.2d 423 (Ark. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 9 times

    In contrast, one who claims to be the illegitimate child of a deceased person seeking to share in the decedent's estate must prove paternity by clear and convincing evidence. Lewis v. Petty, 272 Ark. 250, 613 S.W.2d 585 (1981). The differing standards present a novel issue with regard to the facts in the case at bar.