Legal Opinion · Dissent

Malibu Investment Co. v. Sparks

Utah Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 2000No. 980199Published

1DissentDurham, Associate Chief Justice

¶ 39 I respectfully dissent. Plaintiff Kathy Sparks (“Sparks”) has raised genuine issues of material fact regarding whether defendant Malibu Investment Co. (“Malibu”) discriminated against her based upon the protected category of “familial status.” The landlord sent a notice to Sparks that was facially discriminatory, requiring her to remove her grandchild from the mobile home unit they resided in together. The basic principles of federal and Utah fair housing and discrimination law require that in a case with disputed issues of material fact, Sparks be given a chance to prove that a…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement v. Johnson Controls, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Girardeau A. Spann v. Colonial Village, Inc. Girardeau A. Spann v. Marvin J. GerstinCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1990
  4. United States v. Bill R. Hunter, D/B/A the CourierCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1972
  5. Brad Bangerter v. Orem City Corporation, a Utah Municipal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API