In Re the Marriage of Witten
Supreme Court of Iowa
1Opinion of the Court
TERNUS, Justice.
The primary issue raised on appeal of the district court’s decree in this dissolution action is whether the court properly determined the rights of Arthur (known as Trip) and Tamera Witten with respect to the parties’ frozen human embryos stored at a medical facility. While we agree with Tamera that the informed consent signed by the parties at the request of the medical facility does not control the current dispute between the donors over the use or disposition of the embryos, we reject Tarn-era’s request that she be allowed to use the embryos over Trip’s objection.…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Kass v. KassNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
- Weitl v. MoesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1981
- Audubon-Exira Ready Mix, Inc. v. Illinois Central Gulf RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1983
- Davis v. DavisTennessee Supreme Court · 1992
- In Re the Marriage of BensonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1996
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- In Re the Marriage of SullinsSupreme Court of Iowa · 2006
- Jasper v. H. Nizam, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2009
- In Re Marriage of Fennelly & BreckenfelderSupreme Court of Iowa · 2007
- Thomas v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2008
- Joseph O. Dier v. Cassandra Jo PetersSupreme Court of Iowa · 2012
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.