Court Opinion

ID: 9573860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:59:55.871579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:27.701549
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Justice:
(concurring).
I join in the Chief Justice’s opinion, which therefore commands a majority of this Court. I write only to comment on a troubling fact not expressly mentioned by the Chief Justice.
In his brief, appellant’s counsel asserted that the traditional rule in other jurisdictions disallows any recovery by a spouse if the other spouse intentionally caused the loss. To support this claim, he cited several cases. Appellee’s counsel has pointed out, however, that this rule is and has been for some time a minority position and that it is steadily falling from favor. In addition, appellee’s counsel informs us that most of the supposedly supporting decisions relied on by appellant’s counsel have been overruled or otherwise departed from within their own jurisdictions. See footnote 2 of the Chief Justice’s opinion.
All counsel filing briefs with this or any other court owe the court a duty to assure that stated propositions of law are correct and that cases cited are still good authority and are properly used. See Rules of Professional Conduct of the Utah State Bar, rule 8.3 (effective Jan. 1, 1988). I note this particular instance of questionable statements of law and questionable use of authority as a reminder to all lawyers of their obligation of candor toward the tribunal, an obligation that should not be subordinated to the interests of zealous advocacy.