In re Pennington
Washington Supreme Court
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
- State v. ArmentaWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. ArmentaWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. ThornWashington Supreme Court · 1996
- Connell v. FranciscoWashington Supreme Court · 1995
- Creasman v. BoyleWashington Supreme Court · 1948
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- In Re Marriage of PenningtonWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- Vasquez v. HawthorneWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- Soltero v. WimerWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- Soltero v. WimerWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- Gormley v. RobertsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.