Add to ORKGPlaintiff sued defendants, including plaintiff\u27s husband, for jointly causing a false charge of adultery to be made against plaintiff in a divorce suit. The defendants\u27 demurrer to the complaint was sustained in the trial court as to each and all of the defendants. Held, that although plaintiff\u27s husband was immune from liability, a cause of action had been made out against all the rest of the defendants, and the judgment in their favor was reversed. Ewald v. Lane, (App. D. C. 1939) 104 F. (2d) 222
The Washington position on interspousal tort immunity should be reconsidered in view of two recent C...
The Washington position on interspousal tort immunity should be reconsidered in view of two recent C...
The Washington position on interspousal tort immunity should be reconsidered in view of two recent C...
Plaintiff sued defendants, including plaintiff\u27s husband, for jointly causing a false charge of a...
Plaintiff brought an action to recover damages for injuries which were intentionally inflicted by he...
Following an interlocutory divorce decree, and while the parties were living apart from one another,...
In the majority of states, the Married Women\u27s Acts or Emancipation Acts statutes have no express...
When the automobile driven by plaintiff\u27s husband collided with another vehicle, plaintiff\u27s h...
The Indiana Supreme Court has held that the common law doctrine of interspousal immunity in tort act...
Plaintiff, an automobile guest resident in Wisconsin, brought action against the driver for personal...
The doctrine of interspousal immunity, established at early common law, considers husband and wife l...
In Goode v. Martinis, the Washington Supreme Court held that a wife has a cause of action in tort fo...
Husband and wife, Wisconsin domiciliaries, were involved in an automobile accident in Illinois. W br...
H sued W for a divorce on the statutory grounds that the parties had lived apart without cohabitatio...
AT FIRST BLUSH, the January 5, 1983 Ohio Supreme Court decision in Prem v. Cox, may lead opponents o...
The Washington position on interspousal tort immunity should be reconsidered in view of two recent C...
The Washington position on interspousal tort immunity should be reconsidered in view of two recent C...
The Washington position on interspousal tort immunity should be reconsidered in view of two recent C...
Plaintiff sued defendants, including plaintiff\u27s husband, for jointly causing a false charge of a...
Plaintiff brought an action to recover damages for injuries which were intentionally inflicted by he...
Following an interlocutory divorce decree, and while the parties were living apart from one another,...
In the majority of states, the Married Women\u27s Acts or Emancipation Acts statutes have no express...
When the automobile driven by plaintiff\u27s husband collided with another vehicle, plaintiff\u27s h...
The Indiana Supreme Court has held that the common law doctrine of interspousal immunity in tort act...
Plaintiff, an automobile guest resident in Wisconsin, brought action against the driver for personal...
The doctrine of interspousal immunity, established at early common law, considers husband and wife l...
In Goode v. Martinis, the Washington Supreme Court held that a wife has a cause of action in tort fo...
Husband and wife, Wisconsin domiciliaries, were involved in an automobile accident in Illinois. W br...
H sued W for a divorce on the statutory grounds that the parties had lived apart without cohabitatio...
AT FIRST BLUSH, the January 5, 1983 Ohio Supreme Court decision in Prem v. Cox, may lead opponents o...
The Washington position on interspousal tort immunity should be reconsidered in view of two recent C...
The Washington position on interspousal tort immunity should be reconsidered in view of two recent C...
The Washington position on interspousal tort immunity should be reconsidered in view of two recent C...