From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...
Erwin v. Thomas
Oregon Supreme Court
264 Or. 454, 506 P.2d 494 (1973)
Washington resident Erwin was injured in Washington by Oregon resident Wilbur Thomas. Mrs. Erwin (plaintiff) sued Thomas in an Oregon state court for loss of consortium. The state of Washington subscribed to the common law rule prohibiting a wife from suing for loss of consortium. The state of Oregon had modified that rule so as to allow wives to sue. The Oregon trial court ruled against Mrs. Erwin. She appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Holman, J.)
Dissent (Bryson, J.)
What to do next…
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 607,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
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.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 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.