Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Edmunds v. Edwards

Supreme Court of Nebraska
287 N.W.2d 420 (Neb. 1980)


Facts

Renne Edmunds (plaintiff), guardian of the estate of Harold Edwards, filed a petition against Harold’s wife, Inez Edwards (defendant), to annul their two-year marriage on the ground that Harold lacked the mental capacity to knowingly enter into a marriage contract. Inez denied the claim. Harold had been institutionalized for an intellectual disability in a state-run home for approximately 30 years. During that time, Harold met Inez, and the Edwardses formed a close relationship. After their release from the facility, Harold and Inez lived together with an acquaintance, and Harold secured employment as a food-service worker. Prior to their marriage, Harold and Inez were counseled by a pastor of a church. At a hearing, a psychologist testified that Harold was not competent to enter into a valid marriage, while a psychiatrist who knew Harold well testified that Harold had the mental capacity to fully understand the responsibilities associated with marriage. The trial court found that although Harold lacked a degree of mental capacity, his lack of capacity was not of such a nature as to render Harold incompetent to enter into his marriage with Inez. The court upheld the validity of the marriage and concluded that, at the time of the marriage, Harold had sufficient capacity to understand the nature of the marriage contract and the duties and responsibilities associated with that contract. Edmunds appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Brodkey, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.