Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- ABA (1)
- American Bar Association (1)
- Copenhaver v. Rogers (1)
- Doe v. Kelly (1)
- Guy v. Liederbach (1)
-
- Hale v. Groce (1)
- In re Adoption of Baby Girl L.J. (1)
- In re Adoption of Children by D. (1)
- In the Matter of Baby M. (1)
- In the Matter of the Adoption of Paul (1)
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Services (1)
- Lucas v. Hamm (1)
- May v. Anderson (1)
- Meyer v. Nebraska (1)
- Miroff v. Surrogate Mother (1)
- Savings Bank v. Ward (1)
- Sees v. Baber (1)
- Stephens v. White (1)
- Stowe v. Smith (1)
- Surrogate Parenting Association v. Armstrong (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Surrogate Mother Contract: In The Best Interests Of Society?, Audrey Wolfson Latourette
The Surrogate Mother Contract: In The Best Interests Of Society?, Audrey Wolfson Latourette
University of Richmond Law Review
On March 31, 1987, Judge Harvey R. Sorkow upheld, for the first time, the validity of a surrogate mother-contract in his decision, In the Matter of Baby M. In broad and sweeping language, the judge deemed the contract between the natural mother, Mary Beth Whitehead, (termed the surrogate, pursuant to the contract language) and the natural father, William Stern, specifically enforceable. Judge Sorkow thus terminated Whitehead's parental rights to the child she bore and permanently denied her claims for future custody or future visitation. Creating new law, the judge held that baby selling and adoption laws do not pertain to …
Whose Beneficiaries Are They Anyway? Copenhaver V. Rogers And The Attorney's Contract To Prepare A Will In Virginia, Brian Adams
Whose Beneficiaries Are They Anyway? Copenhaver V. Rogers And The Attorney's Contract To Prepare A Will In Virginia, Brian Adams
University of Richmond Law Review
In a case of first impression in the Commonwealth, the Supreme Court of Virginia recently considered whether an attorney may be liable for drafting a will which results in the failure of a testamentary gift to intended beneficiaries. Historically, will beneficiaries had been denied a means of recovery against attorneys due to a lack of privity between the parties. Although Virginia remains a "strict privity' jurisdiction, it recognizes third-party contract beneficiary claims' and has legislatively abrogated the privity requirement in other areas of the law. The plaintiffs in Copenhaver v. Rogers sought to establish a third-party beneficiary claim as the …