Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 553.02 (2026)
Civil Causes Abolished
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
All civil causes of action for breach of promise to marry, alienation of affections, criminal conversation, and seduction are abolished.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1979–2015 · leading case: Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d 1207 (Utah 1983).
Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d 1207 (Utah 1983). “2901 (1968); Minn. Stat. § 553.02 (1982); Mont. Code Ann.”
Thomas v. Siddiqui, 869 S.W.2d 740 (Mo. 1994). “§ 600-2901 (West 1993) (abolishing both); Minnesota, Minn.Stat.Ann. § 553.02 (West 1993) (abolishing both); Nebraska, Neb.”
Wyman v. Wallace, 615 P.2d 452 (Wash. 1980). “2901 (1980); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 553.02 (West Supp. 1980); Mont.”
Russo v. Sutton, 422 S.E.2d 750 (S.C. 1992). “2901 (1986); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 553.02 (1988); Mont. Code Ann.”
Cannon v. Miller, 322 S.E.2d 780 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984). “Unarguably, the integrity of the marriage relation and the preservation of marital harmony are interests deserving of judicial protection.”
SER Justin S. Golden, Sr. v. Hon. Tod J. Kaufman, Judge, 760 S.E.2d 883 (W. Va. 2014). “2901 (1986); Minn.Stat.Ann. § 553.02 (1988); Neb.Rev.Stat.”
Kline v. Ansell, 414 A.2d 929 (Md. 1980). “2901 (1970); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 553.02 (West Supp. 1979); N.”
Doe v. Doe, 390 N.E.2d 730 (Mass. 1979). “Minn. Stat. Ann. § 553.02 (West Supp. 1979).”
Hoye v. Hoye, 824 S.W.2d 422 (Ky. 1992). “2901 (West 1968); Minn.Stat.Ann. § 553.02 (West Supp.1984); Larson v.”
Feldman v. Feldman, 480 A.2d 34 (N.H. 1984). “2901 (1968); Minn. Stat. § 553.02 (1982); Nev. Rev. Stat.”
Todd Anderson v. Patricia Lloyd (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “” 1 Minn. Stat. § 553.02 (2014). Section 553.”
SER Justin S. Golden, Sr. v. Hon. Tod J. Kaufman, Judge (W. Va. 2014). “”); Minn. Stat. § 553.02 (“All civil causes of action for breach of promise to marry, alienation of affections, criminal conversation, and seduction are abolished.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.