Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Haddow v. Haddowgreen2 sentences2014This more contemporary statement of the applicable cohabitation inquiry, found in Myers, does not replace the framework introduced in Haddow v. Haddow, 707 P.2d 669, 672-74 (Utah 1985), but is a more reliable template in light of the ever-evolving and heterogeneous nature of marriage and marriage-like relationships in modern society. . 2004Haddow v. Haddow, 707 P.2d 669, 672 (Utah 1985). 149 In Haddow, this court assessed whether cohabitation had occurred by looking for "common residency and sexual contact evidencing a conjugal association." Id. | 2 | 2 |
Myers v. Myersgreen2 sentences2017See Myers II, 2011 UT 65 , ¶ 24 n.4, 266 P.3d 806 . 2017See Myers II, 2011 UT 65 , ¶ 24 n.4, 266 P.3d 806 . | 1 | 2 |
Kinsey v. Kinseygreen1 sentence2024See Scott, 2020 UT 54 , ¶ 45. ¶33 Although the district court assessed the cohabitation analysis using the common law test, it specifically determined 20230088-CA 15 2024 UT App 120 Kinsey v. Kinsey that Julie and Boyfriend did not “share[]” Boyfriend’s “residence.” And as indicated, this is a determination that receives “substantial deference on appeal.” Id. ¶ 34. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.