Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Vetas' Estate

Utah Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 1946No. 6818Published

1DissentWade, Justice

I dissent.

I agree that the question of the validity of the marriage was a proper one to be decided in this action and that the decision is binding on the parties hereto; that a common-law marriage cannot be consummated within this state, but that a marriage entered into within this state must, to be valid, be solemnized as required by our statutes; that if the marriage here in question is contrary to the public policy of this state as declared by our legislature then even though it is valid where entered into it is still invalid here. I am not averse to the public policy announced in the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dyer v. BrannockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
  2. Schurler v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Sanders v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Dawson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1926
  5. Huff v. HuffIdaho Supreme Court · 1911

1 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