Wallis v. Smith
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
22 P.3d 682, 130 N.M. 214 (2001)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
Peter Wallis (plaintiff) and Kellie Rae Smith (defendant) commenced a sexual relationship that was conditioned on Smith’s use of birth control. Wallis made clear that he did not want children and would not continue relations with Smith if she stopped using birth control. Wallis himself did not take any precautions against Smith’s pregnancy. Without telling Wallis, Smith stopped using birth control. She became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter. Pursuant to its version of the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), New Mexico provides for mandatory child support. Wallis sued Smith for the economic injury arising from his obligation to support their daughter. His claims included fraud and breach of contract. The trial court dismissed his suit on the grounds that public policy barred recovery. Wallis appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bosson, J.)
Concurrence (Alarid, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 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.
