In re the Marriage of Litowitz
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentSanders, J.
(dissenting) — The majority contends the cryopreservation contract controls the disposition of the preembryos. Majority at 527. But even if so, I posit that the contractual text does not support the majority’s disposition, but rather the trial court’s.
The contract states in pertinent part:
We agree that because both the husband and wife are participants in the cryopreservation program, that any decision regarding the disposition of our pre-embryos will be made by mutual consent. In the event we are unable to reach a mutual decision regarding the disposition of our pre-embryos, we must petition…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Kass v. KassNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
- McDonald v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1992
- Barnett v. HicksWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Eurick v. Pemco Insurance Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1987
- CLEAN v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1996
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.