Spalding County Commissioners v. Tarver

307 S.E.2d 58 (1983)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Spalding County Commissioners v. Tarver

Georgia Court of Appeals
307 S.E.2d 58 (1983)

Facts

James Tarver was a deputy sheriff in Spalding County, Georgia (the county) (defendant). James and Mary Tarver (plaintiff) were married in November of 1963 and divorced in September of 1964. Nine days after James and Mary divorced, James married Patricia Jo Tarver. In April of 1966, during James’s purported marriage to Patricia Jo, Mary gave birth to Barry Tarver (plaintiff), James’s child. James and Patricia Jo divorced in 1968 but remarried in 1969 and divorced again in 1974. James then married and divorced another woman before marrying Revia Tarver (plaintiff) in 1976 and divorcing Revia in 1979. Revia claimed that she and James had a common-law marriage that existed after their divorce. James and Revia lived together until 1980, when James was killed in the course of his employment with the county. Revia sought workers’-compensation dependency benefits as James’s common-law spouse. Mary sought dependency benefits for James’s minor son, Barry, as Barry’s guardian. At a hearing before an administrative-law judge (ALJ) on the benefits applications, Mary presented evidence that James and Mary had entered a common-law marriage in the nine days between Mary’s divorce from James and James’s marriage to Patricia Jo. Mary’s evidence included testimony from several witnesses who indicated that James and Mary lived together and held themselves out as husband and wife. The ALJ ultimately awarded benefits to Barry and denied Revia’s claim. The ALJ concluded that James and Mary had a common-law marriage that was never dissolved by divorce, which rendered all of James’s subsequent marriages invalid. The state workers’-compensation board adopted the ALJ’s award, but a state superior court reversed on appeal and remanded the case after finding that there was no evidence that James and Mary had a common-law marriage. The Spalding County commissioners and Revia cross-appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Carley, J.)

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 790,000 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
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership