Thompson v. Chapman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “In our judgment, the interests which the action seeks to protect are not protected by its existence, and the harm it engenders far outweighs any reason for its continuance.”
• alienation action would be abolished if the court had authority to do so
• court would abolish tort if it had authority to do so
• action permitted only if spouse was incompetent or a minor
• action permitted only if spouse was incompetent or a minor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Nelson v. Jacobsen
  Utah Supreme Court· 1983-08-31· cited 116×
• Lovelace Medical Center v. Mendez Ex Rel. Mendez
  New Mexico Supreme Court· 1991-01-07· cited 89×
• Fundermann v. Mickelson
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 1981-05-06· cited 65×
• Padwa v. Hadley
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 1999-04-15· cited 37×
• Wallis v. Smith
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 2001-03-01· cited 27×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Wyman v. Wallace
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1976-04-26· cited 38×
• Thompson v. Chapman
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 1979-03-27· cited 17×
• Birchfield v. Birchfield
  New Mexico Supreme Court· 1923-07-17· cited 14×
• Wheeler v. Fox
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1974-02-21· cited 11×
• Sena v. Gardner Bridge Co.
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 1979-03-27· cited 6×