Doe v. Roe
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
841 F. Supp. 444 (1994)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Doe (plaintiff), a female resident of Virginia, worked in the District of Columbia (the District). Doe met Roe (defendant), a male resident of the District, while in the District. Over the next month, Doe and Roe met again several times, primarily in the District. On April 26, 1990, Doe and Roe went to Doe’s home in Virginia and had sexual intercourse. On April 29, Doe and Roe had sexual intercourse at the Watergate Hotel in the District. On May 1, Doe began to experience symptoms of genital herpes and genital warts. The incubation period for genital herpes is between two and 10 days, making it impossible to determine whether Doe contracted the diseases on April 26 in Virginia or on April 29 in the District. Both Virginia and the District criminalized sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Doe filed a diversity action in federal court asserting tort claims against Roe, alleging that Roe intentionally misrepresented that he was free from sexually transmitted diseases. Roe moved for summary judgment, arguing that Virginia law barred recovery, and Doe argued that the District’s law governed her claims. The primary issue before the court was which jurisdiction’s law to apply.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pratt, 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.