# Townsend v. Townsend

> Supreme Court of Missouri · April 15, 1986 · 708 S.W.2d 646

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684061

## Case

- **Full name:** Diana TOWNSEND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James E. TOWNSEND, Defendant-Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** April 15, 1986
- **Citations:** 708 S.W.2d 646; 1986 Mo. LEXIS 275
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blackmar
- **Judges:** Rendlen, Higgins, Billings, Welliver, Robertson, Blackmar, Donnelly
- **Cited by:** 37 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684061

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining the prohibition of spouses from suing each other as resting on the reasoning that, because husband and wife are a single unit, allowing spouses to sue would be tantamount to party suing himself or herself
- holding that wife, claiming intentional tort by husband when he allegedly shot her, was not barred by inter-spousal immunity doctrine from bringing a tort action against husband

## Opinion text

BLACKMAR, Judge,
concurring.
I concur and write only to express astonishment that a judge who concurred in Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983), would presume to deliver a lecture about waiting for the legislature.
Based on the assurances in S.A.V. v. K.G.V., 708 S.W.2d 651 (Mo. banc 1986) that the principal opinion does not foreclose further consideration of “unwanted kiss” and “rolling pin” cases, I join in the principal opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684061. Public record. Not legal advice.