McIntyre v. Crouch
Oregon Court of Appeals
780 P.2d 239 (1989)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
Kevin McIntyre (plaintiff) donated semen to Linden Crouch (defendant) to be used for artificial insemination. After a child was conceived from the insemination, McIntyre petitioned to be adjudicated as the father. McIntyre claimed that he had donated the semen because Crouch agreed that he could have an active role in the child’s life, such as participation in important child-rearing decisions and visitation rights. McIntyre also claimed that he was willing to accept all paternity responsibilities. Crouch denied that such an agreement existed and that McIntyre was able to take on paternal responsibilities. McIntyre and Crouch both moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Crouch’s motion on the ground that ORS 109.239 bars a donor of semen for artificial insemination who is unmarried to the mother from obtaining paternal rights. McIntyre appealed on the ground that the statute did not apply because Crouch’s artificial insemination had been performed without a physician, because he was not an anonymous donor, because Crouch was unmarried, and because he donated the semen in reliance on the alleged agreement and wanted parental rights. McIntyre also appealed on the ground that the statute was violative of the Oregon Constitution and the United States Constitution.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, J.)
Concurrence (Deits, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.
