Legal Opinion

Staker v. Ainsworth

Utah Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 1990No. 870166PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DURHAM, Justice:

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of appellees in which the trial court deferred to fence lines as property boundary lines over those established by a record title survey. In granting summary judgment, the trial court relied on the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence. Appellants contend that the trial court misapplied the doctrine and that summary judgment in their favor was warranted. We affirm the judgment and overrule Halladay v. Cluff, 685 P.2d 500 (Utah 1984), and its progeny as to the “objective uncertainty” requirement in boundary by acquiescence.

Appell…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. State v. HansenUtah Supreme Court · 1986
  2. State v. NortonUtah Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Tripp v. BagleyUtah Supreme Court · 1928
  4. American Fork City v. CrosgroveUtah Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Hill v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. State v. MenziesUtah Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Anderson Development Co. v. TobiasUtah Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Smith v. Four Corners Mental Health Center, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Bahr v. ImusUtah Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Orton v. CarterUtah Supreme Court · 1998

46 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