Skip to main content

King v. King

Citations

  • 174 P.3d 659

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that “the United States Supreme Court has ... pulled back the reach of Shelley, if not overruling it sub silentio, by requiring something more than the reliance on a . . . judicial proceeding” (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • recognizing that 15 “the United States Supreme Court has . . . pulled back the reach of Shelley, if not 16 overruling it sub silentio, by requiring something more than the reliance on a . . . 17 judicial proceeding” (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • recognizing that the fundamental nature of the parent -child relationship is entitled to 17 43920- 4- 11 constitutional significance
  • “[F]undamental constitutional rights are not implicated in a dissolution proceeding.”
  • no natural right to appointed counsel in a dissolution proceeding
  • “[F]undamental constitutional rights are not implicated in a dissolution proceeding.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: C. Johnson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

46 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.