TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Van Tassell v. Heidt

MYRTLE K. VAN TASSELL, Respondent, v. ELLA HEIDT, Defendant; LAURA HEIDT, Administratrix, Etc., Et Al., Appellants

Van Tassell v. Heidt, 164 P.2d 817 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 15, 1917
Docket
No. Civ. No. 2038.
Judges
THE COURT. —
Citations
164 P.2d 817164 P. 81733 Cal. App. 2341917 Cal. App. LEXIS 133
Headnotes
Alienation op Affections — Insufficiency of Evidence. — In this action for damages for alienation of affections it is held that the evidence was insufficient to justify the findings and decision of the trial court.
Summary
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

From the examination which the court has made of the entire record in this case, and dealing with the matter of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision of the court, we are satisfied that the evidence is wholly insufficient to warrant the findings and decision of the trial court. This being an action against the parents of a young *235 woman, who alone have appealed, for having alienated from his wife the affections of a man who had illicitly sought the regard of said daughter, the evidence does not show that the defendants in the action were ever guilty of conduct tending to alienate the affections of the husband from his wife so as to subject them to an action for damages. In other words, there is no sufficient evidence to support the findings and judgment of the trial court in so far as the appellants, the father and mother, are concerned. That being so—and without reference to the question of the error which the court made in the admission of hearsay evidence, which seems to have been repeated, but ‘which may not have been sufficiently objected to—we think that the judgment against the appellants ought to be reversed, and it is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1919: 119192026peak 1919 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bourne v. Bourne185 P. 489 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)

Most recent

  1. Bourne v. Bourne185 P. 489 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list