M.H. and J.L.H. v. Caritas Family Services
Supreme Court of Minnesota
488 N.W.2d 282 (1992)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
M.H. and J.L.H. (plaintiffs), a married couple, adopted an infant boy, C.H., from Caritas Family Services (Caritas) (defendant), a Catholic social-service agency. Caritas informed the plaintiffs that C.H. had some history of incest in his background. As C.H. grew older, the plaintiffs witnessed serious behavioral and emotional problems and requested information regarding C.H.’s genetic background as part of his ongoing medical treatment and therapy. Caritas provided the plaintiffs with a document stating that C.H.’s parents were siblings. Caritas also disclosed that C.H.’s father was in good health but was hyperactive and had low intelligence and mental-health issues. The plaintiffs filed suit against Caritas, asserting claims of intentional and negligent misrepresentation. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that Caritas had known but failed to disclose the relationship and medical histories of C.H.’s genetic parents. Caritas moved for summary judgment. The plaintiffs amended their complaint to add allegations of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and a claim for punitive damages. The trial court granted Caritas’s motion for summary judgment intentional misrepresentation and emotional distress claims but denied summary judgment as to the negligent-misrepresentation claim. The plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court of Minnesota granted certiorari to review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wahl, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.