Alex v. Strickland

3 Citing cases

  1. Kuhn V. Cooper

    141 W. Va. 33 (W. Va. 1955)   Cited 5 times
    In Kuhn v. Cooper, 141 W.Va. 33, 42, 87 S.E.2d 531, 536 (1955), the Court noted that there was a slight distinction between alienation of affections and criminal conversation: “Alienation of affections is distinguished from an action for criminal conversation.

    But, if adultery is proved, such proof dispenses with the necessity for proving malice. Alex v. Strickland (Okla.) 239 P. 596. In an action for criminal conversation a physical debauchment of plaintiff's spouse is a necessary element, and the alienation of affections thereby resulting is merely a matter of aggravation.

  2. Novotny v. Novotny

    49 P.2d 75 (Okla. 1935)   Cited 1 times

    The loss of consortium, therefore, is not presumed, but must be proven. Alex v. Strickland, 111 Okla. 267, 239 P. 596. In view of the obvious insufficiency of the evidence, it is useless to discuss the entire absence of proof relative to the intent of the defendant having been willful and malicious, as alleged by plaintiff.

  3. Smith v. Smith

    225 S.W.2d 1001 (Tex. Civ. App. 1949)   Cited 13 times

    Where adultery is admitted or proved, as was done in the instant case, there is authority to the effect that loss of consortium is conclusively presumed. Alex v. Strickland, 111 Okl. 267, 239 P. 596, and 42 C.J.S., Husband and Wife, s 687, page 332. Under the authorities cited and others, actual intent to alienate is presumed where the acts of the party complained of are inherently wrongful and seductive and tend to have the effect complained of as is shown in the case at bar.