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 2001–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gribble v. Gribblegreen2 sentences2007Although we used the in loco parentis doctrine as an interpretive tool to guide the inquiry as to who stands in one of these relationships, the ultimate source of standing was the statute itself—not the common law doctrine of in loco parentis. [5] Id. at *815 68 ("If appellant is in loco parentis, he should be considered a parent for purposes of Sec. 30-3-5."); State ex rel. 2007Although we used the in loco parentis doctrine as an interpretive tool to guide the inquiry as to who stands in one of these relationships, the ultimate source of standing was the statute itself—not the common law doctrine of in loco parentis. [5] Id. at *815 68 ("If appellant is in loco parentis, he should be considered a parent for purposes of Sec. 30-3-5."); State ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
E.N.O. v. L.M.M.green2 sentences2007See, e.g., E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824 , 711 N.E.2d 886, 890-92 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1005 , 120 S.Ct. 500 , 145 L.Ed.2d 386 (1999) (determining that the court's equitable powers governed the resolution of a same-sex partner's de facto parent claim despite a lack of statutory authority); T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222 , 786 A.2d 913, 917 (2001) (rejecting the argument that a partner lacked standing because the statutory scheme did not encompass former partners or paramours and finding standing under the common law doctrine of in loco parentis). [8] A parent may delegate to a third pa 2007See, e.g., E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824 , 711 N.E.2d 886, 890-92 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1005 , 120 S.Ct. 500 , 145 L.Ed.2d 386 (1999) (determining that the court's equitable powers governed the resolution of a same-sex partner's de facto parent claim despite a lack of statutory authority); T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222 , 786 A.2d 913, 917 (2001) (rejecting the argument that a partner lacked standing because the statutory scheme did not encompass former partners or paramours and finding standing under the common law doctrine of in loco parentis). [8] A parent may delegate to a third pa | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2007Parent and Child § 348 (2002); Taylor v. Taylor, 58 Wash.2d 510 , 364 P.2d 444, 445 (1961). 2007Parent and Child § 348 (2002); Taylor v. Taylor, 58 Wash.2d 510 , 364 P.2d 444, 445 (1961). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Owens-Corninggreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824 , 711 N.E.2d 886, 890-92 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1005 , 120 S.Ct. 500 , 145 L.Ed.2d 386 (1999) (determining that the court's equitable powers governed the resolution of a same-sex partner's de facto parent claim despite a lack of statutory authority); T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222 , 786 A.2d 913, 917 (2001) (rejecting the argument that a partner lacked standing because the statutory scheme did not encompass former partners or paramours and finding standing under the common law doctrine of in loco parentis). . 2007See, e.g., E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824 , 711 N.E.2d 886, 890-92 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1005 , 120 S.Ct. 500 , 145 L.Ed.2d 386 (1999) (determining that the court's equitable powers governed the resolution of a same-sex partner's de facto parent claim despite a lack of statutory authority); T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222 , 786 A.2d 913, 917 (2001) (rejecting the argument that a partner lacked standing because the statutory scheme did not encompass former partners or paramours and finding standing under the common law doctrine of in loco parentis). [8] A parent may delegate to a third pa | 1 | 1 |
Emerick v. United Technologies Corp.green2 sentences2007See, e.g., E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824 , 711 N.E.2d 886, 890-92 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1005 , 120 S.Ct. 500 , 145 L.Ed.2d 386 (1999) (determining that the court's equitable powers governed the resolution of a same-sex partner's de facto parent claim despite a lack of statutory authority); T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222 , 786 A.2d 913, 917 (2001) (rejecting the argument that a partner lacked standing because the statutory scheme did not encompass former partners or paramours and finding standing under the common law doctrine of in loco parentis). . 2007See, e.g., E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824 , 711 N.E.2d 886, 890-92 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1005 , 120 S.Ct. 500 , 145 L.Ed.2d 386 (1999) (determining that the court's equitable powers governed the resolution of a same-sex partner's de facto parent claim despite a lack of statutory authority); T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222 , 786 A.2d 913, 917 (2001) (rejecting the argument that a partner lacked standing because the statutory scheme did not encompass former partners or paramours and finding standing under the common law doctrine of in loco parentis). [8] A parent may delegate to a third pa | 1 | 1 |
Roe v. Cartergreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824 , 711 N.E.2d 886, 890-92 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1005 , 120 S.Ct. 500 , 145 L.Ed.2d 386 (1999) (determining that the court's equitable powers governed the resolution of a same-sex partner's de facto parent claim despite a lack of statutory authority); T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222 , 786 A.2d 913, 917 (2001) (rejecting the argument that a partner lacked standing because the statutory scheme did not encompass former partners or paramours and finding standing under the common law doctrine of in loco parentis). . 2007See, e.g., E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824 , 711 N.E.2d 886, 890-92 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1005 , 120 S.Ct. 500 , 145 L.Ed.2d 386 (1999) (determining that the court's equitable powers governed the resolution of a same-sex partner's de facto parent claim despite a lack of statutory authority); T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222 , 786 A.2d 913, 917 (2001) (rejecting the argument that a partner lacked standing because the statutory scheme did not encompass former partners or paramours and finding standing under the common law doctrine of in loco parentis). [8] A parent may delegate to a third pa | 1 | 1 |
In Re Browngreen2 sentences2007L.B., 122 P.3d at 168 n. 7; Luby v. Da Silva (In re Custody of Brown), 153 Wash.2d 646 , 105 P.3d 991, 994 (2005) ("[Nlo Washington case recognizes that nonparents are guaranteed the fundamental rights of parents under the doctrine of in loco parentis."). 2007L.B., 122 P.3d at 168 n. 7; Luby v. Da Silva (In re Custody of Brown), 153 Wash.2d 646 , 105 P.3d 991, 994 (2005) ("[N]o Washington case recognizes that nonparents are guaranteed the fundamental rights of parents under the doctrine of in loco parentis."). | 1 | 1 |
Luby v. Da Silvagreen2 sentences2007L.B., 122 P.3d at 168 n. 7; Luby v. Da Silva (In re Custody of Brown), 153 Wash.2d 646 , 105 P.3d 991, 994 (2005) ("[Nlo Washington case recognizes that nonparents are guaranteed the fundamental rights of parents under the doctrine of in loco parentis."). 2007L.B., 122 P.3d at 168 n. 7; Luby v. Da Silva (In re Custody of Brown), 153 Wash.2d 646 , 105 P.3d 991, 994 (2005) ("[N]o Washington case recognizes that nonparents are guaranteed the fundamental rights of parents under the doctrine of in loco parentis."). | 1 | 1 |
McDonald v. Texas Employers' Ins.green1 sentence2007Ass'n, 267 S.W. 1074, 1076 (Tex.App. 1924) ("All such are said to stand in loco parentis, and, as long as the relation exists, the rights and duties with reference to the child are the same as those of the natural parent."). ¶ 14 The central question now presented to us is whether the in loco parentis doctrine contemplates perpetuating these parent-like rights and obligations after a legal parent has ended the in loco parentis relationship. *812 Because at common law all rights and obligations end with the termination of the in loco parentis relationship, and because the doctrine in no way abr | 1 | 1 |
Tb v. Lrmgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824 , 711 N.E.2d 886, 890-92 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1005 , 120 S.Ct. 500 , 145 L.Ed.2d 386 (1999) (determining that the court's equitable powers governed the resolution of a same-sex partner's de facto parent claim despite a lack of statutory authority); T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222 , 786 A.2d 913, 917 (2001) (rejecting the argument that a partner lacked standing because the statutory scheme did not encompass former partners or paramours and finding standing under the common law doctrine of in loco parentis). . 2007See, e.g., E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824 , 711 N.E.2d 886, 890-92 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1005 , 120 S.Ct. 500 , 145 L.Ed.2d 386 (1999) (determining that the court's equitable powers governed the resolution of a same-sex partner's de facto parent claim despite a lack of statutory authority); T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222 , 786 A.2d 913, 917 (2001) (rejecting the argument that a partner lacked standing because the statutory scheme did not encompass former partners or paramours and finding standing under the common law doctrine of in loco parentis). [8] A parent may delegate to a third pa | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2001See Klam v. Klam, 797 F.Supp. 202, 206 (E.D.N.Y.1992) (holding, custody decisions that "drastically affect" children should not be made ex parte); Brown v. Jones, 473 F.Supp. 439, 446 (N.D.Tex.1979), (stating that ex parte temporary custody orders that do not require immediate hearings with interested parties are constitutionally defective); Sims v. State Dep't of Pub. 2001"Where one stands in loco parentis to another, the rights and liabilities arising out of that relation are, as the words imply, exactly the same as between parent and child." Gribble v. Gribble, 583 P.2d 64, 66 (Utah 1978) (citation and footnotes omitted); see also Pope v. State, 284 Md. 309 , 396 A.2d 1054, 1062-63 (1979) (explaining common law doctrine of in loco parentis); cf. Worley v. Jackson, 595 So.2d 853, 855 (Miss.1992) (stating that grandparents did not stand in loco parentis because, although they had temporary custody of the child, they did not "intend[] to assume toward the child | 1 | 1 |
Worley v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2001"Where one stands in loco parentis to another, the rights and liabilities arising out of that relation are, as the words imply, exactly the same as between parent and child." Gribble v. Gribble, 583 P.2d 64, 66 (Utah 1978) (citation and footnotes omitted); see also Pope v. State, 284 Md. 309 , 396 A.2d 1054, 1062-63 (1979) (explaining common law doctrine of in loco parentis); cf. Worley v. Jackson, 595 So.2d 853, 855 (Miss.1992) (stating that grandparents did not stand in loco parentis because, although they had temporary custody of the child, they did not "intend[] to assume toward the child 2001"Where one stands in loco parentis to another, the rights and liabilities arising out of that relation are, as the words imply, exactly the same as between parent and child." Gribble v. Gribble, 583 P.2d 64, 66 (Utah 1978) (citation and footnotes omitted); see also Pope v. State, 284 Md. 309 , 396 A.2d 1054, 1062-63 (1979) (explaining common law doctrine of in loco parentis); cf. Worley v. Jackson, 595 So.2d 853, 855 (Miss.1992) (stating that grandparents did not stand in loco parentis because, although they had temporary custody of the child, they did not "intend[] to assume toward the child | 1 | 1 |
Pope v. Stategreen2 sentences2001"Where one stands in loco parentis to another, the rights and liabilities arising out of that relation are, as the words imply, exactly the same as between parent and child." Gribble v. Gribble, 583 P.2d 64, 66 (Utah 1978) (citation and footnotes omitted); see also Pope v. State, 284 Md. 309 , 396 A.2d 1054, 1062-63 (1979) (explaining common law doctrine of in loco parentis); cf. Worley v. Jackson, 595 So.2d 853, 855 (Miss.1992) (stating that grandparents did not stand in loco parentis because, although they had temporary custody of the child, they did not "intend[] to assume toward the child 2001"Where one stands in loco parentis to another, the rights and liabilities arising out of that relation are, as the words imply, exactly the same as between parent and child." Gribble v. Gribble, 583 P.2d 64, 66 (Utah 1978) (citation and footnotes omitted); see also Pope v. State, 284 Md. 309 , 396 A.2d 1054, 1062-63 (1979) (explaining common law doctrine of in loco parentis); cf. Worley v. Jackson, 595 So.2d 853, 855 (Miss.1992) (stating that grandparents did not stand in loco parentis because, although they had temporary custody of the child, they did not "intend[] to assume toward the child | 1 | 1 |
Klam v. Klamgreen2 sentences2001See Klam v. Klam, 797 F.Supp. 202, 206 (E.D.N.Y.1992) (holding, custody decisions that "drastically affect" children should not be made ex parte); Brown v. Jones, 473 F.Supp. 439, 446 (N.D.Tex.1979), (stating that ex parte temporary custody orders that do not require immediate hearings with interested parties are constitutionally defective); Sims v. State Dep't of Pub. 2001"Where one stands in loco parentis to another, the rights and liabilities arising out of that relation are, as the words imply, exactly the same as between parent and child." Gribble v. Gribble, 583 P.2d 64, 66 (Utah 1978) (citation and footnotes omitted); see also Pope v. State, 284 Md. 309 , 396 A.2d 1054, 1062-63 (1979) (explaining common law doctrine of in loco parentis); cf. Worley v. Jackson, 595 So.2d 853, 855 (Miss.1992) (stating that grandparents did not stand in loco parentis because, although they had temporary custody of the child, they did not "intend[] to assume toward the child | 1 | 1 |
Sims v. STATE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE, ETC.green1 sentence2001Welfare, 438 F.Supp. 1179, 1193 (S.D.Tex.1977), rev'd on other grounds sub. nom. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Patterson v. Patterson
green
2 sentences2018We affirm without reaching these arguments because they were not preserved. ¶36 As a general rule we "will not consider an issue unless it has been preserved for appeal." Patterson v. Patterson , 2011 UT 68 , ¶ 12, 266 P.3d 828 (citation omitted). 2018We affirm without reaching these arguments because they were not preserved. ¶36 As a general rule we "will not consider an issue unless it has been preserved for appeal." Patterson v. Patterson , 2011 UT 68 , ¶ 12, 266 P.3d 828 (citation omitted). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Jones v. Barlow
green
2 sentences2009In Jones v. Barlow, 2007 UT 20 , 154 P.3d 808 , the supreme court held “that the doctrine of in loco parentis ... does not independently grant standing to seek visitation after the in loco parentis relationship has ended.” Id. ¶ 2. 2009In Jones v. Barlow, 2007 UT 20 , 154 P.3d 808 , the supreme court held “that the doctrine of in loco parentis ... does not independently grant standing to seek visitation after the in loco parentis relationship has ended.” Id. ¶ 2. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Wilkinson
green
2 sentences2007Id. 1 11 Because we confine our review to the district court's interpretation of the doctrine of in loco parentis and do not address its findings of fact or application of those facts to the law, the appropriate standard of review is correctness. 2007Id. ¶ 11 Because we confine our review to the district court's interpretation of the doctrine of in loco parentis and do not address its findings of fact or application of those facts to the law, the appropriate standard of review is correctness. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Parentage of LB
green
2 sentences2007L.B., 122 P.3d at 168 n. 7; Luby v. Da Silva (In re Custody of Brown), 153 Wash.2d 646 , 105 P.3d 991, 994 (2005) ("[Nlo Washington case recognizes that nonparents are guaranteed the fundamental rights of parents under the doctrine of in loco parentis."). 2007L.B., 122 P.3d at 168 n. 7; Luby v. Da Silva (In re Custody of Brown), 153 Wash.2d 646 , 105 P.3d 991, 994 (2005) ("[N]o Washington case recognizes that nonparents are guaranteed the fundamental rights of parents under the doctrine of in loco parentis."). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
T.B. v. L.R.M.
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824 , 711 N.E.2d 886, 890-92 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1005 , 120 S.Ct. 500 , 145 L.Ed.2d 386 (1999) (determining that the court's equitable powers governed the resolution of a same-sex partner's de facto parent claim despite a lack of statutory authority); T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222 , 786 A.2d 913, 917 (2001) (rejecting the argument that a partner lacked standing because the statutory scheme did not encompass former partners or paramours and finding standing under the common law doctrine of in loco parentis). . 2007See, e.g., E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824 , 711 N.E.2d 886, 890-92 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1005 , 120 S.Ct. 500 , 145 L.Ed.2d 386 (1999) (determining that the court's equitable powers governed the resolution of a same-sex partner's de facto parent claim despite a lack of statutory authority); T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222 , 786 A.2d 913, 917 (2001) (rejecting the argument that a partner lacked standing because the statutory scheme did not encompass former partners or paramours and finding standing under the common law doctrine of in loco parentis). [8] A parent may delegate to a third pa | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Carvin v. Britain
green
2 sentences2007The in loco parentis status is "temporary by definition and ceases on withdrawal of consent by the legal parent." Carvin v. Britain (In re Parentage of L.B.), 155 Wash.2d 679 , 122 P.3d 161 , 168 n.7 (2005). 3 In other words, a legal parent may freely terminate the in loco parentis status by removing her child from the relationship, thereby extinguishing all parent-like rights and responsibilities vested in the former surrogate parent. 11 23 Other courts have recognized that the temporary nature of the in loco parentis status militates against using the doctrine to grant continual parent-like 2007The in loco parentis status is "temporary by definition and ceases on withdrawal of consent by the legal parent." Carvin v. Britain (In re Parentage of L.B.), 155 Wash.2d 679 , 122 P.3d 161 , 168 n. 7 (2005). [3] In other words, a legal parent may freely terminate the in loco parentis status by removing her child from the relationship, thereby extinguishing all parent-like rights and responsibilities vested in the former surrogate parent. *814 ¶ 23 Other courts have recognized that the temporary nature of the in loco parentis status militates against using the doctrine to grant continual paren | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State in Interest of JWF
green
2 sentences2007J.W.F., 799 P.2d 710 , 715 n. 5 (Utah 1990) (finding that the court in Gribble "was interpreting Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5 (1953)"). 2007J.W.F., 799 P.2d 710 , 715 n. 5 (Utah 1990) (finding that the court in Gribble "was interpreting Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5 (1953)"). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Matter of Agnes P.
green
2 sentences2007Agnes P., 800 P.2d at 205 . 2007Agnes P., 800 P.2d at 205 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.