Legal Opinion

Halladay v. Cluff

Utah Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1984No. 18032PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OAKS, Justice:

This is an appeal from a judgment relying on boundary by acquiescence to quiet title to a 52.5- by 118-foot parcel of real property in the city of Provo. The issues are whether a showing of uncertainty or dispute on the location of a boundary line is necessary to the application of boundary by acquiescence, and, if so, what is meant by “uncertainty” and who has the burden of proving it.

The property in issue is located in Provo City and is shown as parcel A-B-C-D on the accompanying map. From 1930 to the present, there has been a fence along lines E-A-B-F. It extends…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Tripp v. BagleyUtah Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Holmes v. JudgeUtah Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Hartung v. WitteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Brown v. MillinerUtah Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Home Owners' Loan Corporation v. DudleyUtah Supreme Court · 1943

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Grayson Roper Ltd. Partnership v. FinlinsonUtah Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Orton v. CarterUtah Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Staker v. AinsworthUtah Supreme Court · 1990
  4. RHN CORP. v. VeibellUtah Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Van Dyke v. ChappellUtah Supreme Court · 1991

27 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