Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2011 UT App 53 - Lilly v. Lilly

2011 UT App 53 - Lilly v. Lilly’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
3
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

11 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738B

Relies on State v. Burns · Paffel v. Paffel · Marriage of Basileh v. Alghusain · State v. Yazzie · Anderson v. Bell

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[the place where one actually lives, as distinguished from a domicile,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “a state must give- full faith and credit to the judgments of other states!,] ... to be given full faith and credit[ ] these foreign judgments must.be both valid and final.”' Lilly v. Lilly, 2011 UT App 53, ¶ 25 , 250 P.3d 994 . The Nevada order that Tangren argues should have been givén full faith 'and credit begins:”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[In exploring the meaning of the terms 'resident' and 'reside, it is important to recognize that a distinction of legal significance exists between the concepts of physical residence and legal residence or domicile.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.