Add to ORKGFollowing an interlocutory divorce decree, and while the parties were living apart from one another, defendant allegedly assaulted the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed her complaint on the ground that no action could be brought by one spouse against the other for personal torts committed during coverture. On appeal, held, reversed, three judges dissenting and one concurring. The Judicial Code and the Husband and Wife Statutes of Utah, when considered together, entitle a married woman to maintain an action against her husband for injuries intentionally inflicted upon her. Taylor v. Patten, 2 Utah (2d) 404, 275 P. (2d) 696 (1954)
Husband and wife, Wisconsin domiciliaries, were involved in an automobile accident in Illinois. W br...
One of the interesting developments in the law of community property has been the rule which declare...
Perhaps the husband should still be permitted to exercise the right to moderate chastisement, in cas...
Following an interlocutory divorce decree, and while the parties were living apart from one another,...
In Goode v. Martinis, the Washington Supreme Court held that a wife has a cause of action in tort fo...
Plaintiff brought an action to recover damages for injuries which were intentionally inflicted by he...
In the majority of states, the Married Women\u27s Acts or Emancipation Acts statutes have no express...
Plaintiff sued defendants, including plaintiff\u27s husband, for jointly causing a false charge of a...
The doctrine of interspousal immunity, established at early common law, considers husband and wife l...
Some fear that requiring litigation of interspousal torts in a divorce action may undermine the poli...
Plaintiff brought an action for loss of consortium with her husband, allegedly due to defendant\u27s...
When the automobile driven by plaintiff\u27s husband collided with another vehicle, plaintiff\u27s h...
H sued W for a divorce on the statutory grounds that the parties had lived apart without cohabitatio...
Husband and wife were residents of state A, in which a personal tort action between the spouses was ...
In Manning v. Manning, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that a divorce must be granted on a motion ...
Husband and wife, Wisconsin domiciliaries, were involved in an automobile accident in Illinois. W br...
One of the interesting developments in the law of community property has been the rule which declare...
Perhaps the husband should still be permitted to exercise the right to moderate chastisement, in cas...
Following an interlocutory divorce decree, and while the parties were living apart from one another,...
In Goode v. Martinis, the Washington Supreme Court held that a wife has a cause of action in tort fo...
Plaintiff brought an action to recover damages for injuries which were intentionally inflicted by he...
In the majority of states, the Married Women\u27s Acts or Emancipation Acts statutes have no express...
Plaintiff sued defendants, including plaintiff\u27s husband, for jointly causing a false charge of a...
The doctrine of interspousal immunity, established at early common law, considers husband and wife l...
Some fear that requiring litigation of interspousal torts in a divorce action may undermine the poli...
Plaintiff brought an action for loss of consortium with her husband, allegedly due to defendant\u27s...
When the automobile driven by plaintiff\u27s husband collided with another vehicle, plaintiff\u27s h...
H sued W for a divorce on the statutory grounds that the parties had lived apart without cohabitatio...
Husband and wife were residents of state A, in which a personal tort action between the spouses was ...
In Manning v. Manning, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that a divorce must be granted on a motion ...
Husband and wife, Wisconsin domiciliaries, were involved in an automobile accident in Illinois. W br...
One of the interesting developments in the law of community property has been the rule which declare...
Perhaps the husband should still be permitted to exercise the right to moderate chastisement, in cas...