Legal Opinion

R. S. v. R. S.

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided October 27, 1983No. 54,670PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Abbott, J.:

This appeal arises out of a divorce action. The main issues involve the husband’s responsibility to a child conceived during the marriage by heterologous insemination (artificial insemination by donor). We have substituted initials for names in the caption and will refer to the parties as “husband,” “wife” and “child.” The appellant husband also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in determining the division of property.

The trial court held for the wife on the disputed issues. Thus, we review the facts in a light most favorable to her and consider all reasonable…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. . Childs Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1921
  2. Lynn v. LynnNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
  3. People v. SorensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Romano v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
  5. Gursky v. GurskyNew York Supreme Court · 1963

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Paul v. MontsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
  2. K.B. v. N.B.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1991
  3. Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-JenkinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 2006
  4. Laura WW. v. Peter WW.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
  5. In Re Baby DoeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987

4 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