State ex rel. Williams v. Marsh
Missouri Supreme Court
626 S.W.2d 223 (1982)
- Written by Brittany Frankel, JD
Facts
Denise Williams (plaintiff) had been separated from her husband, Edward Williams (defendant), for approximately five months when Edward entered the residence that Denise shared with their child and physically beat Denise. Denise filed a petition for an ex parte order of protection under Missouri’s Adult Abuse Act (the Act). The Act was adopted to address the increasing number of incidents of domestic violence and the need to protect the victims. An adult who was abused by a former adult member of the household could petition the court for relief, namely by seeking either an ex parte order or a protective order that could be issued after notice and a hearing. At a hearing on Denise’s petition, the trial court concluded that Edward was a former adult member of the household whose actions constituted abuse. However, the court held that the Act was unconstitutional, because the Act violated the due process rights of the individual subjected to the ex parte order. The trial court dismissed the petition, and Denise appealed. In a separate action, Denise filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to issue an order of protection, an order restraining Edward from entering her dwelling, and a temporary order of custody of their minor child. The appeal and the mandamus action were consolidated by the Supreme Court of Missouri for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Higgins, J.)
Concurrence (Bardgett, J.)
Dissent (Welliver, 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.