Gary Hara West v City of SD Statement of facts-Husband seeks recovery of permanent damage on behalf of loss of consortium.-He sought for recovery of any loss of his wife’s services. She served as a clerk for his garage business.-The husband is not granted judicial review due to the fact that legislature did not oppose him seeking consortium, as it did a female. Concise statement of the issue in the case-Is Mr. West erroneously awarded recoveries, from loss consortium and loss of his wife’s services, through judicial review rather than legislative action? Statement of the applicable law-Deshotel v Atchison-Gist v French -Consortium-Meek v Pacific Electric Apply the rule to the facts of the particular case-His right to consortium is no greater than hers. Any interference is a violation. If one is granted rights, while the other is not, would be denial of equal protection granted by the state.-
This is the end of the preview. Sign up
access the rest of the document.
This note was uploaded on 04/03/2008 for the course BLAW 320 taught by Professor Rhoads during the Fall '07 term at CSU Long Beach.