Court Opinion

ID: 9505164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:01:51.490973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:18.284436
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Justice,
concurring in result.
I agree that Eli Welch, the plaintiff Amy Smith’s fiancé, was not in a “relationship to the plaintiff analogous to a spouse” and therefore is not entitled to recover under our Groves v. Taylor precedent. As a couple engaged to be married, their relationship had not been legally established by license or ceremony nor was it one of long duration marked by the financial interdependence, intimacy, and other characteristics of the spousal relationship. The majority opinion makes clear that Welch and Smith were not involved in a cohabiting but unmarried relationship. As such, its comments with respect to relationships other than the fiancé-fiancée relationship at issue here are unnecessary to the decision in this case and therefore not prece-dential.
RUCKER, J., concurs.