Hakkila v. Hakkila
New Mexico Court of Appeals
812 P.2d 1320 (1991)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
E. Arnold Hakkila (plaintiff) filed a petition for divorce from Peggy Hakkila (defendant). In response, Peggy counter-petitioned for damages arising from alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Arnold and Peggy had separated after 10 years of marriage. Peggy claimed that, during that time, Arnold had: (1) assaulted her and screamed at her on more than one occasion, (2) locked her out of the house on one occasion, (3) remarked that she preferred women to men, and (4) frequently made other derogatory comments toward her. At a hearing, there was conflicting testimony regarding Peggy’s past mental health. One psychologist testified that Peggy had borderline personality disorder that predated the Hakkilas’ marriage. Another psychologist testified that the possible mental disorder arose during the marriage. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Peggy’s emotional and mental health, particularly since the Hakkilas’ separation, consisted of acute depression and one psychotic episode. Arnold argued that, as a matter of public policy, one spouse could not bring a cause of action against the other for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court disagreed and held in Peggy’s favor. Arnold appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hartz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
