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.
11 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Wagreen2 sentences2004See In re W.A., 2002 UT 127 , 63 P.3d 607 , cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1035 , 123 S.Ct. 2092 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1065 (2003). 5 . 2004See In re W.A., 2002 UT 127 , 63 P.3d 607 , cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1035 , 123 S.Ct. 2092 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1065 (2003). 5 . | 2 | 2 |
Wenz v. Schwartzegreen2 sentences2002Cf. Wenz v. Schwartze, 183 Mont. 166 , 598 P.2d 1086, 1091-92 (1979) (concluding personal jurisdiction over a parent is not necessary in order to terminate parental rights, without specifically discussing status exception), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071 , 100 S.Ct. 1015 , 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980); In re A.E.H., 161 Wis.2d 277 , 468 N.W.2d 190 , 198-200, (focusing on child's contacts with the state in order to terminate parental rights), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925 , 112 S.Ct. 338 , 116 L.Ed.2d 278 (1991). ¶ 23 Likewise, we note that the majority of jurisdictions that have addressed whether the statu 2002Cf. Wenz v. Schwartze, 183 Mont. 166 , 598 P.2d 1086, 1091-92 (1979) (concluding personal jurisdiction over a parent is not necessary in order to terminate parental rights, without specifically discussing status exception), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071 , 100 S.Ct. 1015 , 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980); In re A.E.H., 161 Wis.2d 277 , 468 N.W.2d 190 , 198-200, (focusing on child's contacts with the state in order to terminate parental rights), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925 , 112 S.Ct. 338 , 116 L.Ed.2d 278 (1991). ¶ 23 Likewise, we note that the majority of jurisdictions that have addressed whether the statu | 2 | 2 |
In Re One Minor Childgreen2 sentences2002Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del.1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App.1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai'i 367 , 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 (1996), and In re Vernon R.V., 128 N.M. 242 , 991 P.2d 986, 2002W.A.), 2002 UT App 72 , ¶ 48, (Bench, J., dissenting). [7] Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del. 1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai`i 367, 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 | 2 | 2 |
In the Interest of Doegreen2 sentences2002Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del.1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App.1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai'i 367 , 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 (1996), and In re Vernon R.V., 128 N.M. 242 , 991 P.2d 986, 2002W.A.), 2002 UT App 72 , ¶ 48, (Bench, J., dissenting). [7] Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del. 1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai`i 367, 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 | 2 | 2 |
In Re MLKgreen2 sentences2002See In re Interest of M.L.K., 13 Kan.App.2d 251 , 768 P.2d 316, 319 (1989) (holding that the status exception extends to termination proceedings because the "[t]ermination of parental rights is nothing more than a determination of the legal status between the natural parent and the child"); In re M.S.B., 611 S.W.2d 704, 706 (Tex.Civ.App.1980) (declaring that "[i]t cannot be doubted that the parent-child relationship creates a status, and that a suit seeking to terminate such relationship is a status adjudication"). 2002See In re Interest of M.L.K., 13 Kan.App.2d 251 , 768 P.2d 316, 319 (1989) (holding that the status exception extends to termination proceedings because the "[t]ermination of parental rights is nothing more than a determination of the legal status between the natural parent and the child"); In re M.S.B., 611 S.W.2d 704, 706 (Tex.Civ.App.1980) (declaring that "[i]t cannot be doubted that the parent-child relationship creates a status, and that a suit seeking to terminate such relationship is a status adjudication"). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Vernon RVgreen2 sentences2002W.A.), 2002 UT App 72 , ¶ 48, (Bench, J., dissenting). [7] Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del. 1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai`i 367, 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 2002W.A.), 2002 UT App 72 , ¶ 48, (Bench, J., dissenting). [7] Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del. 1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai`i 367, 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 | 2 | 2 |
In the Interest of S.A.V.green2 sentences2002Wyoming v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 , 821 (Colo.Ct.App.1998); Balestrien v. Maliska, 622 So.2d 561 , 563 & n. 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993) (citing cases from fourteen other states applying the status exception in child custody cases); Bartsch v. Bartsch, 636 N.W.2d 3, 6-7 (Iowa 2001); Joliff v. Joliff, 829 P.2d 34 , 36 n. 5 (Okla.1992); In re S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992). 2002Wyoming v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 , 821 (Colo.Ct.App.1998); Balestrieri v. Maliska, 622 So.2d 561 , 563 & n. 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1993) (citing cases from fourteen other states applying the status exception in child custody cases); Bartsch v. Bartsch, 636 N.W.2d 3, 6-7 (Iowa 2001); Joliff v. Joliff, 829 P.2d 34 , 36 n. 5 (Okla.1992); In re S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992). | 2 | 2 |
Bartsch v. Bartschgreen2 sentences2002Wyoming v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 , 821 (Colo.Ct.App.1998); Balestrien v. Maliska, 622 So.2d 561 , 563 & n. 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993) (citing cases from fourteen other states applying the status exception in child custody cases); Bartsch v. Bartsch, 636 N.W.2d 3, 6-7 (Iowa 2001); Joliff v. Joliff, 829 P.2d 34 , 36 n. 5 (Okla.1992); In re S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992). 2002Wyoming v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 , 821 (Colo.Ct.App.1998); Balestrieri v. Maliska, 622 So.2d 561 , 563 & n. 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1993) (citing cases from fourteen other states applying the status exception in child custody cases); Bartsch v. Bartsch, 636 N.W.2d 3, 6-7 (Iowa 2001); Joliff v. Joliff, 829 P.2d 34 , 36 n. 5 (Okla.1992); In re S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992). | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-734green2 sentences2002See In re Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-734, 25 Ariz.App. 333 , 543 P.2d 454, 459-60 (1975); In re Interest of M.L.K., 768 P.2d at 319-20 ; In re J.J.C., No. E2000-01223-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 256161 , at *1-2, 2001 Tenn.App. 2002See In re Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-734, 25 Ariz.App. 333 , 543 P.2d 454, 459-60 (1975); In re Interest of M.L.K., 768 P.2d at 319-20 ; In re J.J.C., No. E2000-01223-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 256161 , at *1-2, 2001 Tenn.App. | 2 | 2 |
In Interest of AEHgreen2 sentences2002Cf. Wenz v. Schwartze, 183 Mont. 166 , 598 P.2d 1086, 1091-92 (1979) (concluding personal jurisdiction over a parent is not necessary in order to terminate parental rights, without specifically discussing status exception), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071 , 100 S.Ct. 1015 , 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980); In re A.E.H., 161 Wis.2d 277 , 468 N.W.2d 190 , 198-200, (focusing on child's contacts with the state in order to terminate parental rights), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925 , 112 S.Ct. 338 , 116 L.Ed.2d 278 (1991). ¶ 23 Likewise, we note that the majority of jurisdictions that have addressed whether the statu 2002Cf. Wenz v. Schwartze, 183 Mont. 166 , 598 P.2d 1086, 1091-92 (1979) (concluding personal jurisdiction over a parent is not necessary in order to terminate parental rights, without specifically discussing status exception), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071 , 100 S.Ct. 1015 , 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980); In re A.E.H., 161 Wis.2d 277 , 468 N.W.2d 190 , 198-200, (focusing on child's contacts with the state in order to terminate parental rights), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925 , 112 S.Ct. 338 , 116 L.Ed.2d 278 (1991). ¶ 23 Likewise, we note that the majority of jurisdictions that have addressed whether the statu | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Marriage of Hudsongreen2 sentences2002See Wenz, 598 P.2d at 1092 , cert, denied, 444 U.S. 1071 , 100 S.Ct. 1015 , 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980) (holding, among other things, "that personal jurisdiction over a parent is not necessary to the termination of his parental rights to a minor child, so long as the parent has actual notice of the termination proceedings or the District Court ... makes an effort reasonably calculated to provide notice to the parent”); In re Marriage of Hudson, 434 N.E.2d 107, 117-19 (Ind.Ct.App.1982 (holding that "the trial court's assertion of jurisdiction over the custody proceeding without obtaining in personam 2002W.A.), 2002 UT App 72 , ¶ 48, (Bench, J., dissenting). [7] Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del. 1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai`i 367, 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 | 2 | 2 |
In the Interest of M. S. B.green2 sentences2002See In re Interest of M.L.K., 13 Kan.App.2d 251 , 768 P.2d 316, 319 (1989) (holding that the status exception extends to termination proceedings because the “[tjermination of parental rights is nothing more than a determination of the legal status between the natural parent and the child”); In re M.S.B., 611 S.W.2d 704, 706 (Tex.Civ.App.1980) (declaring that “[i]t cannot be doubted that the parent-child relationship creates a status, and that a suit seeking to terminate such relationship is a status adjudication”). 2002See In re Interest of M.L.K., 13 Kan.App.2d 251 , 768 P.2d 316, 319 (1989) (holding that the status exception extends to termination proceedings because the "[t]ermination of parental rights is nothing more than a determination of the legal status between the natural parent and the child"); In re M.S.B., 611 S.W.2d 704, 706 (Tex.Civ.App.1980) (declaring that "[i]t cannot be doubted that the parent-child relationship creates a status, and that a suit seeking to terminate such relationship is a status adjudication"). | 2 | 2 |
Dlc v. Cahgreen2 sentences2002Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del.1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App.1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai'i 367 , 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 (1996), and In re Vernon R.V., 128 N.M. 242 , 991 P.2d 986, 2002W.A.), 2002 UT App 72 , ¶ 48, (Bench, J., dissenting). [7] Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del. 1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai`i 367, 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 | 2 | 2 |
Bryan v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002Cf. Wenz v. Schwartze, 183 Mont. 166 , 598 P.2d 1086, 1091-92 (1979) (concluding personal jurisdiction over a parent is not necessary in order to terminate parental rights, without specifically discussing status exception), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071 , 100 S.Ct. 1015 , 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980); In re A.E.H., 161 Wis.2d 277 , 468 N.W.2d 190 , 198-200, (focusing on child's contacts with the state in order to terminate parental rights), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925 , 112 S.Ct. 338 , 116 L.Ed.2d 278 (1991). ¶ 23 Likewise, we note that the majority of jurisdictions that have addressed whether the statu 2002W.A.), 2002 UT App 72 , ¶ 48, (Bench, J., dissenting). [7] Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del. 1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai`i 367, 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 | 1 | 2 |
Providence Journal Co. v. Federal Bureau of Investigationgreen2 sentences2002Cf. Wenz v. Schwartze, 183 Mont. 166 , 598 P.2d 1086, 1091-92 (1979) (concluding personal jurisdiction over a parent is not necessary in order to terminate parental rights, without specifically discussing status exception), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071 , 100 S.Ct. 1015 , 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980); In re A.E.H., 161 Wis.2d 277 , 468 N.W.2d 190 , 198-200, (focusing on child's contacts with the state in order to terminate parental rights), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925 , 112 S.Ct. 338 , 116 L.Ed.2d 278 (1991). ¶ 23 Likewise, we note that the majority of jurisdictions that have addressed whether the statu 2002W.A.), 2002 UT App 72 , ¶ 48, (Bench, J., dissenting). [7] Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del. 1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai`i 367, 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 | 1 | 2 |
Honicker v. Hendriegreen2 sentences2002Cf. Wenz v. Schwartze, 183 Mont. 166 , 598 P.2d 1086, 1091-92 (1979) (concluding personal jurisdiction over a parent is not necessary in order to terminate parental rights, without specifically discussing status exception), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071 , 100 S.Ct. 1015 , 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980); In re A.E.H., 161 Wis.2d 277 , 468 N.W.2d 190 , 198-200, (focusing on child's contacts with the state in order to terminate parental rights), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925 , 112 S.Ct. 338 , 116 L.Ed.2d 278 (1991). ¶ 23 Likewise, we note that the majority of jurisdictions that have addressed whether the statu 2002W.A.), 2002 UT App 72 , ¶ 48, (Bench, J., dissenting). [7] Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del. 1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai`i 367, 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 | 1 | 2 |
| Midland Funding LLC v. Sotolongogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Von Hake v. Thomasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| D'Aston v. D'Astongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Von Hake v. Thomasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Tuttlegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Immaculate Conception Corp. v. Iowa Department of Transportationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| D. A. v. Utah and E. A. v. Utahgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Foster v. Maritrans, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pennoyer v. Neff
red
2 sentences2002Second, such proceedings are “analogous to [a] court’s termination of the marriage relationship between a husband and wife,” In re Interest of M.L.K, 768 P.2d at 319 , and the Supreme Court has determined that the status exception applies to divorce proceedings, see Shaffer, 433 U.S. at 208 n. 30, 97 S.Ct. 2569 (citing Traynor, supra, at 660-61); Pennoyer, 95 U.S. at 734-35 . 2002Second, such proceedings are "analogous to [a] court's termination of the marriage relationship between a husband and wife," In re Interest of M.L.K., 768 P.2d at 319 , and the Supreme Court has determined that the status exception applies to divorce proceedings, see Shaffer, 433 U.S. at 208 n. 30, 97 S.Ct. 2569 (citing Traynor, supra, at 660-61); Pennoyer, 95 U.S. at 734-35 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Balestrieri v. Maliska
green
2 sentences2002Wyoming v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 , 821 (Colo.Ct.App.1998); Balestrien v. Maliska, 622 So.2d 561 , 563 & n. 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993) (citing cases from fourteen other states applying the status exception in child custody cases); Bartsch v. Bartsch, 636 N.W.2d 3, 6-7 (Iowa 2001); Joliff v. Joliff, 829 P.2d 34 , 36 n. 5 (Okla.1992); In re S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992). 2002Wyoming v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 , 821 (Colo.Ct.App.1998); Balestrieri v. Maliska, 622 So.2d 561 , 563 & n. 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1993) (citing cases from fourteen other states applying the status exception in child custody cases); Bartsch v. Bartsch, 636 N.W.2d 3, 6-7 (Iowa 2001); Joliff v. Joliff, 829 P.2d 34 , 36 n. 5 (Okla.1992); In re S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
May v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2002Contrary to D.A.'s arguments, our decision to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings is consistent with the Court's decision in May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 , 73 S.Ct. 840 , 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1953). 2002Contrary to D.A.'s arguments, our decision to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings is consistent with the Court's decision in May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 , 73 S.Ct. 840 , 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1953). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
green
2 sentences2002We address the juvenile court's latter conclusion and affirm. [5] ¶ 20 The United States Supreme Court has explained that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits a court to assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant where that defendant has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 2002We address the juvenile court's latter conclusion and affirm. [5] ¶ 20 The United States Supreme Court has explained that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits a court to assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant where that defendant has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (internal quotations and citation omitted). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
PEOPLE EX REL. STATE OF WYO. v. Stout
green
2 sentences2002Wyoming v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 , 821 (Colo.Ct.App.1998); Balestrien v. Maliska, 622 So.2d 561 , 563 & n. 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993) (citing cases from fourteen other states applying the status exception in child custody cases); Bartsch v. Bartsch, 636 N.W.2d 3, 6-7 (Iowa 2001); Joliff v. Joliff, 829 P.2d 34 , 36 n. 5 (Okla.1992); In re S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992). 2002Wyoming v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 , 821 (Colo.Ct.App.1998); Balestrieri v. Maliska, 622 So.2d 561 , 563 & n. 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1993) (citing cases from fourteen other states applying the status exception in child custody cases); Bartsch v. Bartsch, 636 N.W.2d 3, 6-7 (Iowa 2001); Joliff v. Joliff, 829 P.2d 34 , 36 n. 5 (Okla.1992); In re S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Joliff v. Joliff
green
2 sentences2002Wyoming v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 , 821 (Colo.Ct.App.1998); Balestrien v. Maliska, 622 So.2d 561 , 563 & n. 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993) (citing cases from fourteen other states applying the status exception in child custody cases); Bartsch v. Bartsch, 636 N.W.2d 3, 6-7 (Iowa 2001); Joliff v. Joliff, 829 P.2d 34 , 36 n. 5 (Okla.1992); In re S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992). 2002Wyoming v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 , 821 (Colo.Ct.App.1998); Balestrieri v. Maliska, 622 So.2d 561 , 563 & n. 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1993) (citing cases from fourteen other states applying the status exception in child custody cases); Bartsch v. Bartsch, 636 N.W.2d 3, 6-7 (Iowa 2001); Joliff v. Joliff, 829 P.2d 34 , 36 n. 5 (Okla.1992); In re S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Shaffer v. Heitner
green
2 sentences2002Id. at 734 (emphasis added). ¶ 21 The Supreme Court reaffirmed the existence of the status exception in Shaffer v. *614 Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 , 97 S.Ct. 2569 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). 2002Id. at 734 (emphasis added). ¶ 21 The Supreme Court reaffirmed the existence of the status exception in Shaffer v. *614 Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 , 97 S.Ct. 2569 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
green
2 sentences2002See Wenz, 598 P.2d at 1092 , cert, denied, 444 U.S. 1071 , 100 S.Ct. 1015 , 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980) (holding, among other things, "that personal jurisdiction over a parent is not necessary to the termination of his parental rights to a minor child, so long as the parent has actual notice of the termination proceedings or the District Court ... makes an effort reasonably calculated to provide notice to the parent”); In re Marriage of Hudson, 434 N.E.2d 107, 117-19 (Ind.Ct.App.1982 (holding that "the trial court's assertion of jurisdiction over the custody proceeding without obtaining in personam 2002W.A.), 2002 UT App 72 , ¶ 48, (Bench, J., dissenting). [7] Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del. 1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai`i 367, 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Hudson v. Hudson
green
2 sentences2002See Wenz, 598 P.2d at 1092 , cert, denied, 444 U.S. 1071 , 100 S.Ct. 1015 , 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980) (holding, among other things, "that personal jurisdiction over a parent is not necessary to the termination of his parental rights to a minor child, so long as the parent has actual notice of the termination proceedings or the District Court ... makes an effort reasonably calculated to provide notice to the parent”); In re Marriage of Hudson, 434 N.E.2d 107, 117-19 (Ind.Ct.App.1982 (holding that "the trial court's assertion of jurisdiction over the custody proceeding without obtaining in personam 2002W.A.), 2002 UT App 72 , ¶ 48, (Bench, J., dissenting). [7] Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del. 1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai`i 367, 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Fort Belknap Indian Community v. United States
green
2 sentences2002See Wenz, 598 P.2d at 1092 , cert, denied, 444 U.S. 1071 , 100 S.Ct. 1015 , 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980) (holding, among other things, "that personal jurisdiction over a parent is not necessary to the termination of his parental rights to a minor child, so long as the parent has actual notice of the termination proceedings or the District Court ... makes an effort reasonably calculated to provide notice to the parent”); In re Marriage of Hudson, 434 N.E.2d 107, 117-19 (Ind.Ct.App.1982 (holding that "the trial court's assertion of jurisdiction over the custody proceeding without obtaining in personam 2002W.A.), 2002 UT App 72 , ¶ 48, (Bench, J., dissenting). [7] Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del. 1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai`i 367, 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Crisman v. Odeco, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002Cf. Wenz v. Schwartze, 183 Mont. 166 , 598 P.2d 1086, 1091-92 (1979) (concluding personal jurisdiction over a parent is not necessary in order to terminate parental rights, without specifically discussing status exception), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071 , 100 S.Ct. 1015 , 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980); In re A.E.H., 161 Wis.2d 277 , 468 N.W.2d 190 , 198-200, (focusing on child's contacts with the state in order to terminate parental rights), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925 , 112 S.Ct. 338 , 116 L.Ed.2d 278 (1991). ¶ 23 Likewise, we note that the majority of jurisdictions that have addressed whether the statu 2002W.A.), 2002 UT App 72 , ¶ 48, (Bench, J., dissenting). [7] Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del. 1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai`i 367, 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Hudson v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2002Cf. Wenz v. Schwartze, 183 Mont. 166 , 598 P.2d 1086, 1091-92 (1979) (concluding personal jurisdiction over a parent is not necessary in order to terminate parental rights, without specifically discussing status exception), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071 , 100 S.Ct. 1015 , 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980); In re A.E.H., 161 Wis.2d 277 , 468 N.W.2d 190 , 198-200, (focusing on child's contacts with the state in order to terminate parental rights), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925 , 112 S.Ct. 338 , 116 L.Ed.2d 278 (1991). ¶ 23 Likewise, we note that the majority of jurisdictions that have addressed whether the statu 2002W.A.), 2002 UT App 72 , ¶ 48, (Bench, J., dissenting). [7] Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del. 1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai`i 367, 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 | 2 | 2002–2002 |
C. C. v. P. C.
green
2 sentences2002Cf. Wenz v. Schwartze, 183 Mont. 166 , 598 P.2d 1086, 1091-92 (1979) (concluding personal jurisdiction over a parent is not necessary in order to terminate parental rights, without specifically discussing status exception), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071 , 100 S.Ct. 1015 , 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980); In re A.E.H., 161 Wis.2d 277 , 468 N.W.2d 190 , 198-200, (focusing on child's contacts with the state in order to terminate parental rights), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925 , 112 S.Ct. 338 , 116 L.Ed.2d 278 (1991). ¶ 23 Likewise, we note that the majority of jurisdictions that have addressed whether the statu 2002W.A.), 2002 UT App 72 , ¶ 48, (Bench, J., dissenting). [7] Besides those cases ruling that personal jurisdiction could not be asserted over the nonresident parent due to lack of notice, see, e.g., In re One Minor Child, 411 A.2d 951, 952-53 (Del. 1980), and those cases that conclude personal jurisdiction is lacking without discussing the status exception, see, e.g., D.L.C. v. C.A.H., 764 So.2d 562, 564-65 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999), our research reveals only two cases that have declined to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings: In re Doe, 83 Hawai`i 367, 926 P.2d 1290, 1299 | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Mclain
green
1 sentence2026In January 2022, the court reviewed the evaluation and found Mclain to be incompetent but with “a substantial probability of being restored to competency in the foreseeable future.” Mclain subsequently received treatment, and at a hearing in April 2022, the court found that Mclain had been restored to competency. ¶7 At a status hearing in October 2022, Counsel reminded the court that Mclain “wanted to do the case himself.” When the court 20230241-CA 3 2026 UT App 4 State v. Mclain addressed Mclain, it expressed its understanding that he was now “representing [himself].” In various proceedings | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Mclain neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Bridgewaters green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Taylor neutral | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Blanke green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| United States v. Batchelder green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. E.A. neutral | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Kirkpatrick v. United States green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.