Legal Opinion

Mauk v. Mauk

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 1984No. 83-1337PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Per curiam

The issue presented in this case is whether an unemancipated minor child may be held liable to his parent in tort.

Although we have not previously addressed this precise question, the doctrine of parental immunity was expressly approved by this court in Teramano v. Teramano (1966), 6 Ohio St. 2d 117 [35 O.O.2d 144], paragraph one of the syllabus. Generally speaking, the rule operates to preclude an unemancipated minor child from maintaining an action in tort against his parent. Id.

Teramano was followed, and a detailed analysis of the development of parental immunity undertaken, in Karam v.…

2Cases cited78 opinions

  1. Goller v. WhiteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Gibson v. GibsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Falco v. PADOSSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  4. Jagers v. Royal Indemnity CompanySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1973
  5. Gelbman v. GelbmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1969

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Kirchner v. CrystalOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Sumwalt v. Allstate InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Clark v. Snapper Power Equipment, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Diehl v. DiehlSupreme Court of Iowa · 1988
  5. Leach v. Newport Yellow Cab, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1985

16 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