Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Marriage of Litowitz

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 2002No. 70413-9Published

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

  1. Kass v. KassNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
  2. McDonald v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Barnett v. HicksWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Eurick v. Pemco Insurance Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1987
  5. CLEAN v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1996

8 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