Williams v. Miller

How courts have described this case

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

• “If the language of a judgment is obscure or ambiguous, the rules that apply to the construction of ambiguous contracts apply.”
• specifically holding marshaling doctrine applies to juvenile proceedings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State, in Interest of Jfs
  Court of Appeals of Utah· 1990-12-06· cited 19×
• Lyngle v. Lyngle
  Court of Appeals of Utah· 1992-04-09· cited 19×
• Hoth v. White
  Court of Appeals of Utah· 1990-09-07· cited 17×
• Iota v. Davco Management Company
  Court of Appeals of Utah· 2016-11-25· cited 11×
• Bishins v. Mateer
  Massachusetts Appeals Court· 2004-06-30· cited 8×

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State Ex Rel. D.S.K. v. Kasper
  Court of Appeals of Utah· 1990-04-25· cited 57×
• Baggs v. Anderson
  Utah Supreme Court· 1974-11-06· cited 38×
• Heiner v. S.J. Groves & Sons Co.
  Court of Appeals of Utah· 1990-03-30· cited 23×
• Whitehouse v. Whitehouse
  Court of Appeals of Utah· 1990-03-21· cited 21×
• Lucky Seven Rodeo Corp. v. Clark
  Court of Appeals of Utah· 1988-06-09· cited 20×
• Park City Utah Corp. v. Ensign Co.
  Utah Supreme Court· 1978-10-23· cited 18×
• Scott v. Scott
  Utah Supreme Court· 1967-07-21· cited 15×
• Smith v. Linmar Energy Corp.
  Court of Appeals of Utah· 1990-04-19· cited 10×
• Terry v. Price Municipal Corp.
  Utah Supreme Court· 1989-12-01· cited 10×
• Lamberth v. Lamberth
  Utah Supreme Court· 1976-05-19· cited 2×