Legal Opinion

Jacobs v. Hafen

Utah Supreme Court

Decided May 24, 1996No. 950065PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ZIMMERMAN, Chief Justice:

Plaintiff Mark Jacobs appeals from a trial court judgment quieting title to disputed property in defendants Wilford L. Hafen and Joann B. Hafen under the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence. We reverse.

Neither party challenges the trial court’s findings of fact, and we assume them to be correct. Jacobs and the Hafens are record owners of adjoining property on opposite sides of the county line between Garfield and Kane Counties. 1 The county line runs east to west along a section and a township line. Jacobs, who purchased his property in 1991, is the record owner of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. PenaUtah Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Horton v. Goldminer's DaughterUtah Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Staker v. AinsworthUtah Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Holmes v. JudgeUtah Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Van Dyke v. ChappellUtah Supreme Court · 1991

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. State v. CantonUtah Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Orton v. CarterUtah Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Ault v. HoldenUtah Supreme Court · 2002
  4. RHN CORP. v. VeibellUtah Supreme Court · 2004
  5. D'Elia v. Rice Development, Inc.Court of Appeals of Utah · 2006

12 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