Carter v. Carter
Florida Supreme Court
88 So. 2d 153 (1956)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Ruby Carter (plaintiff) shot and killed her husband, Hunter Carter Jr. Although Ruby was the named beneficiary of Hunter’s life-insurance policy, Ruby faced disqualification under the so-called murdering-heir or slayer rule that one who unlawfully and intentionally kills a named insured cannot take under the victim’s insurance policy. Ruby initially pleaded guilty to manslaughter but later withdrew that plea and was tried for and acquitted of second-degree murder. Hunter’s insurer sued in interpleader to determine whether Ruby, Hunter’s father (defendant), who was also the policy’s designated contingent beneficiary, or the administrator of Hunter’s estate (defendant) should receive the proceeds of Hunter’s life insurance. The court dismissed the insurer as a party, and the case continued as an action between Ruby, the father, and the estate administrator. The trial court denied Ruby’s motion for summary judgment, and Ruby appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thornal, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.