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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 12 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Mary Ann Holmes and Garry Holmes v. John Sopuch and St. John's Mercy Medical Center, a Corporation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mary Ann Holmes and Garry Holmes v. John Sopuch and St. John's Mercy Medical Center, a Corporation Anchor | green | “must intend to reside at the new location indefinitely with no present or fixed intent to move on upon the happening of a reasonably certain event.” | 3 |
| 2 | Gilwee v. Town of Barre | green | “can achieve the right result for the wrong reason.” | 3 |
| 3 | Duval v. Duval | green | “to change domicile, there must be a relocation to the new residence and continued dwelling there, coupled with an intention of remaining there indefinitely; neither physical presence alone nor intention alone is sufficient to effectuate a change of domicile.” | 3 |
| 4 | Abulqasim v. Mahmoud | green | “the 'intent' aspect of domicile is generally spelled out in terms indicating an intent to remain for an indefinite future time or, as sometimes stated in the negative, the absence of any intention to go elsewhere, but does not require an affirmative intent to remain permanently …” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.