Legal Opinion

In re Pennington

Washington Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 2000No. Nos. 67900-2; 68323-9PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

— In these consolidated cases, we must determine whether the legal requirements to establish a meretricious relationship were satisfied so as to allow for equitable relief under our holdings in Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339, 898 P.2d 831 (1995) and In re Marriage of Lindsey, 101 Wn.2d 299, 678 P.2d 328 (1984). We hold the facts of these cases do not support concluding the existence of stable, cohabiting relationships for either of the parties. Furthermore, we hold neither party made a sufficient showing to justify recovery under other equitable theories. We affirm the Court of Appeals…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. State v. ArmentaWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State v. ArmentaWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State v. ThornWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Connell v. FranciscoWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Creasman v. BoyleWashington Supreme Court · 1948

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. In Re Marriage of PenningtonWashington Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Vasquez v. HawthorneWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Soltero v. WimerWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Soltero v. WimerWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Gormley v. RobertsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004

36 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