Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Thompson v. Thompson

• 1912 • 226 U.S. 551 • White Court
In Thompson v. Thompson, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a wife could sue her husband for personal injuries inflicted upon her by him during their marriage. The case arose after Mrs. Thompson sued Mr. Thompson in Washington D.C., seeking damages for physical and mental suffering caused by his alleged violent behavior towards her while they were married and living together in Virginia. The court ruled that under common law, a wife does not have the right to sue her...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1912
Docket: 45
226 U.S. 551
33 S. Ct. 129
57 L. Ed. 347
1913 U.S. LEXIS 2263
Argued: Nov 08, 1912

Thompson v. Thompson

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Thompson v. Thompson, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a wife could sue her husband for personal injuries inflicted upon her by him during their marriage. The case arose after Mrs. Thompson sued Mr. Thompson in Washington D.C., seeking damages for physical and mental suffering caused by his alleged violent behavior towards her while they were married and living together in Virginia. The court ruled that under common law, a wife does not have the right to sue her husband for torts committed against her during their marriage due to marital unity's legal principle - which views husband and wife as one entity under law rather than separate individuals capable of suing each other. However, it also noted that this rule is subject to change if local legislation provides otherwise or if there are exceptions such as cases involving property rights or contracts between spouses where courts have allowed suits despite marital unity doctrine. Ultimately, since no such exception applied here nor did any local legislation override this common-law rule (as per District of Columbia laws), the court held that Mrs. Thompson could not maintain an action against Mr. Thompson for personal injuries she suffered at his hands during their cohabitation.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Thompson v. Thompson, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a Washington D.C. law that allowed married women to sue their husbands for personal injuries. The majority held that this law did not extend to cases where wives sought damages from their husbands for alienation of affection or breach of marital duties because such suits would disrupt domestic tranquility and public peace. However, Justice Holmes argued that there was no reason why these principles should be applied differently in cases involving physical injury versus emotional harm caused by a spouse’s misconduct. He believed it was inconsistent to allow lawsuits over physical harm but not emotional distress, as both could cause significant damage within a marriage.

Opinion written by Justice MPitney
Decided: Jan 06, 1913
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms