Clayton Coker v. Samantha Hess Coker — Danielson, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Danielson dissents because the majority treated evidence of adultery and related conduct as sufficient to establish statutory indignities, thereby conflating two separate divorce grounds and relying on a precedent he considers wrongly decided. He would have overruled that precedent, held that the evidence did not show the settled and systematic conduct historically required for indignities, and reversed and remanded rather than reaching the attorney-fee issue. Justice Goodson, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agrees that the divorce grounds were proved but would affirm the attorney-fee award absent a clear abuse of discretion.