Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Where can I find download or read about the laws of ohio on alienation of affection or homewreckers?

0
Posted

Where can I find download or read about the laws of ohio on alienation of affection or homewreckers?

0

In McCutcheon v. Brooks (1988), 37 Ohio App.3d 110, 524 N.E.2d 202, the court held that torts of alienation of affection and criminal conversation, abolished by R.C. 2305.29 (see enclosed), are not revived by the subsequent recognition of the independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The General Assembly intended that the torts of alienation of affections and criminal conversation be eliminated regardless of what name they are called or the severity of the misconduct involved. If the torts were to be recognized again under the name of intentional infliction of emotional distress, all of the can of worms that existed before would be reopened again. This reasoning equally applies to an action based on a breach of a promise to marry. It is the intent of the legislature in R.C. 2305.29 to abolish the tort of breach of a promise to marry. This tort is also not revived by the subsequent recognition of the independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional distres

0

In McCutcheon v. Brooks (1988), 37 Ohio App.3d 110, 524 N.E.2d 202, the court held that torts of alienation of affection and criminal conversation, abolished by R.C. 2305.29 (see enclosed), are not revived by the subsequent recognition of the independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The General Assembly intended that the torts of alienation of affections and criminal conversation be eliminated regardless of what name they are called or the severity of the misconduct involved. If the torts were to be recognized again under the name of intentional infliction of emotional distress, all of the can of worms that existed before would be reopened again. This reasoning equally applies to an action based on a breach of a promise to marry. It is the intent of the legislature in R.C. 2305.29 to abolish the tort of breach of a promise to marry. This tort is also not revived by the subsequent recognition of the independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional distres

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.

Experts123