Legal Opinion

Mohn v. Tingley

California Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1923No. L. A. No. 6990PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLawlor, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, Mrs. Irene M. Mohn, to recover damages from Katherine Tingley, defendant, for the alienation of the affections of her husband, Dr. George F. Mohn. Defendant Philo B. Tingley, Katherine Tingley’s husband, was joined as a necessary party by amendment to the complaint, and was served with summons by publication. He having failed to appear, judgment was taken against him by default, from which he has not appealed. The jury returned a verdict against Katherine Tingley and found specially that she knowingly and intentionally enticed plaintiff’s husband away…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Pereira v. PereiraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  3. De la Montanya v. De la MontanyaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Adkins v. BrettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Forbes v. HydeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Moa v. Estado Libre AsociadoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1972
  2. Daggett v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Ferraro v. Pacific Finance Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1970
  4. Wills v. JJ Newberry Co.California Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. Baird v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928

46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API