Cases Flashcards
McGuire v. McGuire
Supreme Court of Nebraska
59 N.W.2d 336 (Neb. 1953)
One spouse may not sue the other for support and maintenance while the couple’s marriage remains intact, they continue to live together, and the parties’ home is maintained.
Note: Emphasizes marital privacy
North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Inc. v. Harris
Supreme Court of North Carolina
354 S.E.2d 471 (1987)
Even in the absence of an express contract, a wife may be held responsible for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the necessaries doctrine.
Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Hawley
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
195 N.C. App. 4455; 672 S.E.2d 742 (2009)
The only recognized exception to the doctrine of necessaries, known as the separation exception, requires that the
provider of the services or necessaries carry the burden of showing that the husband and wife were living apart when the
services were provided and that the spousal separation was due to the fault or misconduct of the husband.
A spouse seeking to benefit from the separation exception to the doctrine of necessaries must show that the provider
of necessary services had actual notice of the separation at the time the services were rendered.
Griswold v. Connecticut
United States Supreme Court
381 U.S. 479 (1965)
An implied “right of privacy” exists within the Bill of Rights that prohibits a state from preventing married couples from using contraception.
The Court constructed a right to marital privacy based upon the “penumbras that emanate from the Bill of Rights”.
Various guarantees create zones of privacy.
Lawrence v. Texas
United States Supreme Court
539 U.S. 558 (2003)
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a right to liberty in individual decisions concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship.
Loving v. Virginia
United States Supreme Court
388 U.S. 1 (1967)
A state may not restrict marriages between persons solely on the basis of race under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Equal Protection Clause violation (racial discrimination) and Due Process Clause Violation (right to marry) are fundamental rights
Zablocki v. Redhail
United States Supreme Court
434 U.S. 374 (1978)
The right to marry is a fundamental right, and any legislative attempts by a state to limit that right are unconstitutional unless they are narrowly tailored to the accomplishment of an important governmental purpose.
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
798 N.E.2d 941 (2003)
Preventing same-sex couples from civil marriage violates their liberty and equality protections under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Windsor v. United States
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
797 F.Supp. 2d 320 (2011), 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012), aff’d on other grounds, 133 S.Ct. 558 (2013)
The House of Representatives may intervene as of right to an action involving the constitutionality of a federal statute if the Department of Justice gives notice of its intent not to defend the statute.
Based on the 5th Amendment Due Process (Applies to Federal Government)
Obergefell v. Hodges
United States Supreme Court
135 S. Ct. 1039, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
Under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, states must issue marriage licenses and recognize lawful out-of-state marriages for same-sex couples.
State v. Green
Utah Supreme Court
99 P.3d 820 (2004)
A state anti-bigamy law does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Israel v. Allen
Colorado Supreme Court
195 Colo. 263, 577 P.2d 762 (1978)
A statute may not prohibit marriage between adopted siblings.
Moe v. Dinkins
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
533 F. Supp. 623 (1981)
A state statute requiring parental consent before a minor may legally marry does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Larson v. Larson
Illinois Appellate Court
42 Ill. App. 2d 467, 192 N.E.2d 594 (1963)
Marriage carries a presumption that both parties were mentally capable of understanding the contract at the time of the ceremony.
Carabetta v. Carabetta
Supreme Court of Connecticut
182 Comm. 344, 438 A.2d 109 (1980)
A marriage is not rendered void under Connecticut law by virtue of the couple’s failure to obtain a statutorily required marriage license.
Key Point: The absence of express statutory language results in a marriage without a license being dissoluble but not void.
Meyer v. Nebraska
United States Supreme Court
262 U.S. 390 (1923)
A state may not prohibit the teaching of foreign languages to a young child in school when such teaching has been requested by the child’s parent because this interferes with the fundamental liberty interest of a parent to control his or her child’s education.
Note: Open the door to family privacy arguments under the First Amendment and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Addressed the ‘general welfare’ of the education of children.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 510 (1925)
Requiring children to be educated only by public instruction violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Note: Open the door to family privacy arguments under the First Amendment and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Addressed the ‘general welfare’ of the education of children.
Stone v. Thompson (2019)
South Carolina Supreme Court Decision
South Carolina abolishes common law marriage on July 24th, 2019.
Parties may no longer enter into a valid marriage in South Carolina without a license.
In re Estate of Hollett
New Hampshire Supreme Court
834 A.2d 348 (2003)
A prenuptial agreement is not enforceable if the agreement was obtained through duress.
DeLorean v. DeLorean
New Jersey Superior Court
211 N.J. Super. 432, 511 A.2d 1257 (1986)
Jurisdictions vary as to whether a valid prenuptial agreement imposes a duty on both parties to fully disclose their financial assets to one another.
Gross v. Gross
Ohio Supreme Court
11 Ohio St. 3d 99, 464 N.E.2d 500 (1984)
The terms of a prenuptial agreement pertaining to alimony may be voidable in the event of a later change in circumstances.
Curry v. Curry
Georgia Supreme Court
260 Ga. 302, 392 S.E.2d 879 (1990)
The legal analysis that applies to prenuptial agreements is also applicable to reconciliation agreements.
A prenuptial agreement is generally enforceable unless
(1) the agreement was obtained through fraud, duress, misrepresentation, or nondisclosure of material facts;
(2) the agreement is unconscionable; or
(3) a change in circumstances would make enforcement unfair or unreasonable.
Hitaffer v. Argonne Co.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit
183 F.2d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
The court held that a wife could maintain a consortium action based on an injury to her husband.
Martin v. Martin
California Court of Appeal
Sup. Ct. No. 230798 (1984)
Personal benefits derived by a spouse as consideration for misappropriated community property do not absolve the spouse of responsibility for the misappropriation.
