Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortstatutetrialsummary judgmentdivorcestatute of limitations
tortstatutetrialsummary judgmentdivorcestatute of limitations

Related Cases

Porter v. Wilson, 389 S.W.2d 650
View Case »
Berg v. Hudesman, 115 Wash.2d 657, 801 P.2d 222
View Case »
Arko v. Cirou, 305 Ga.App. 790, 700 S.E.2d 604, 10 FCDR 2722
View Case »
Sutton v. Banner Life Ins. Co., 686 A.2d 1045
View Case »
Gallagher Switchboard Corp. v. Heckler Elec. Co., 34 Misc.2d 256, 229 N.Y.S.2d 623
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wright v. Wright, 654 So.2d 542

Facts

During the pendency of their divorce, Helen Ann Perkins Wright sued her estranged husband, Andrew James 'Pop' Wright, asserting various claims based on allegations that he had made threats toward her; those claims included assault, battery, the tort of outrage, and invasion of privacy. The last alleged beating occurred in 1981, and the couple had minimal contact thereafter. Mrs. Wright claimed she felt threatened by Mr. Wright driving by her apartment, despite no direct confrontations since their separation.

During the pendency of their divorce, Helen Ann Perkins Wright sued her estranged husband, Andrew James 'Pop' Wright, asserting various claims based on allegations that he had made threats toward her; those claims included assault, battery, the tort of outrage, and invasion of privacy. The last alleged beating occurred in 1981, and the couple had minimal contact thereafter. Mrs. Wright claimed she felt threatened by Mr. Wright driving by her apartment, despite no direct confrontations since their separation.

Issue

Whether the claims for assault, battery, tort of outrage, and invasion of privacy were barred by the statute of limitations and whether the husband's actions constituted an invasion of privacy.

Whether the claims for assault, battery, tort of outrage, and invasion of privacy were barred by the statute of limitations and whether the husband's actions constituted an invasion of privacy.

Rule

Claims for assault, battery, and outrageous conduct are barred by the statute of limitations if the actions occurred outside the statutory period. The tort of invasion of privacy requires wrongful intrusion into one's private activities.

Claims for assault, battery, and outrageous conduct are barred by the statute of limitations if the actions occurred outside the statutory period. The tort of invasion of privacy requires wrongful intrusion into one's private activities.

Analysis

The court found that Mr. Wright made a prima facie showing that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the claims. The evidence presented by Mrs. Wright did not constitute substantial evidence of assault, battery, or outrageous conduct since the last incident occurred in 1981, which was barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, the court determined that Mr. Wright's act of driving by Mrs. Wright's home did not amount to an invasion of privacy.

The court found that Mr. Wright made a prima facie showing that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the claims. The evidence presented by Mrs. Wright did not constitute substantial evidence of assault, battery, or outrageous conduct since the last incident occurred in 1981, which was barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, the court determined that Mr. Wright's act of driving by Mrs. Wright's home did not amount to an invasion of privacy.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Mr. Wright, concluding that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims.

The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Mr. Wright, concluding that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims.

Who won?

Andrew James 'Pop' Wright prevailed in the case because the court found that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that there was no substantial evidence of wrongful conduct.

Andrew James 'Pop' Wright prevailed in the case because the court found that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that there was no substantial evidence of wrongful conduct.

You must be