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.
7 Utah opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Throckmorton v. Throckmortongreen2 sentences2024See Throckmorton v. Throckmorton, 767 P.2d 121, 123 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (“The doctrine of res judicata applies in divorce actions.”). 2020These principles apply with as much force in a divorce case as they do in any other case; indeed, we have held that “[t]he doctrine of res judicata applies in divorce actions.” See Throckmorton v. Throckmorton, 767 P.2d 121, 123 (Utah Ct. App. 1988). ¶7 However, in certain limited circumstances, usually defined by statute or rule, courts may reconsider an order even after entry of final judgment. | 3 | 3 |
Hogge v. Hoggegreen2 sentences1990Hogge v. Hogge, 649 P.2d 51, 53 (Utah 1982). 1990Hogge v. Hogge, 649 P.2d 51, 53 (Utah 1982). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Smithgreen1 sentence2011"The doctrine of res judicata applies in divorce actions and subsequent modification proceedings." Smith v. Smith, 793 P.2d 407, 410 (Utah Ct.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Jacobsen v. Jacobsengreen1 sentence1988Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 703 P.2d 303, 305 (Utah 1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McFarland v. McFarland
green
1 sentence2024But “[i]n the family law context, our legislature has given district courts the authority to revisit many of the provisions contained in a typical divorce decree, including provisions pertaining to child 20221044-CA 12 2024 UT App 31 McFarland v. McFarland custody, child support, alimony, property distribution, and debts.” See Robertson v. Stevens, 2020 UT App 29, ¶ 7 , 461 P.3d 323 (emphasis added); see also Utah Code § 30-3-5(5). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Robertson v. Stevens
green
2 sentences2024But “[i]n the family law context, our legislature has given district courts the authority to revisit many of the provisions contained in a typical divorce decree, including provisions pertaining to child 20221044-CA 12 2024 UT App 31 McFarland v. McFarland custody, child support, alimony, property distribution, and debts.” See Robertson v. Stevens, 2020 UT App 29, ¶ 7 , 461 P.3d 323 (emphasis added); see also Utah Code § 30-3-5(5). 2024But “[i]n the family law context, our legislature has given district courts the authority to revisit many of the provisions contained in a typical divorce decree, including provisions pertaining to child 20221044-CA 12 2024 UT App 31 McFarland v. McFarland custody, child support, alimony, property distribution, and debts.” See Robertson v. Stevens, 2020 UT App 29, ¶ 7 , 461 P.3d 323 (emphasis added); see also Utah Code § 30-3-5(5). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Krambule v. Krambule
green
2 sentences2011Nevertheless, trial courts have "continuing jurisdiction to make subsequent changes or new orders" regarding child custody and support; the parties' property, debts, and obligations; and alimony, see Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5 (3), (8)(g)(i) (Supp. 2011), if the party seeking such a change is able to demonstrate that a substantial change of circumstances not contemplated in the divorce decree has occurred since the decree was entered, see Krambule v. Krambule, 1999 UT App 357, ¶ 13 , 994 P.2d 210 . 2011Nevertheless, trial courts have "continuing jurisdiction to make subsequent changes or new orders" regarding child custody and support; the parties' property, debts, and obligations; and alimony, see Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5 (3), (8)(g)(i) (Supp. 2011), if the party seeking such a change is able to demonstrate that a substantial change of circumstances not contemplated in the divorce decree has occurred since the decree was entered, see Krambule v. Krambule, 1999 UT App 357, ¶ 13 , 994 P.2d 210 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Penrod v. Nu Creation Creme, Inc.
green
1 sentence1990Id. *410 The doctrine of res judicata applies in divorce actions and subsequent modification proceedings. | 1 | 1990–1990 |