Gil v. Gil

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that it was not unanticipated that “cohabitating parties would eventually share expenses”
• noting that such showing is a “jurisdictional prerequisite” with burden placed on party seeking modification
• noting that such showing is a \jurisdictional prerequisite\
• noting that such showing is a “jurisdictional prerequisite”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Mayo v. Mayo
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2001-09-26· cited 19×
• Taylor v. Taylor
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2003-01-07· cited 19×
• Schwartz v. Haas
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1999-07-19· cited 10×
• Miller v. Miller
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2005-11-04· cited 5×
• Lowery v. Lowery
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1991-04-05· cited 4×
• Wardwell v. Clapp
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1998-07-15· cited 3×
• Root v. Root
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2005-08-02· cited 2×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• DeKoeyer v. DeKoeyer
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1986-01-17· cited 15×
• Mancini v. Mancini
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1983-06-27· cited 11×
• Bullard v. Bullard
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1984-08-03· cited 10×