2026-05-23T22:36:05Zhttps://keep.lib.asu.edu/oai/request

oai:keep.lib.asu.edu:node-1736662023-04-20T22:31:32Zoai_pmh:alloai_pmh:repo_items

173666 https://hdl.handle.net/10776/1787 2008-05-09 eng Heathcotte, Brock Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences. Center for Biology and Society. Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Arizona Board of Regents open access http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Pursuant to an express provision of the embryo disposition contract they both signed, a husband and wife had to petition the court for instructions because they could not reach an agreement about what to do with frozen embryos when they divorced. The trial court awarded the pre-embryos to the husband and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. However, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the pre-embryos should be thawed out and allowed to expire because the dispute had not been resolved within a five year time frame prescribed by the Cryopreservation Agreement. A dissenting opinion filed by one judge argued that the five year limit should not apply because of judicial delay in reaching a final decision. Law Fertilization in Vitro Reproduction Fertilization Litowitz v. Litowitz [Brief] (2002)