Also known as: surnames · last name · family name
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A hereditary family name passed from parent to child. Use of a shared surname supplies evidence that the parties are holding themselves out publicly as spouses.
Sean Steele and Serena Soto moved in together after college and obtained a family mobile plan listing both under the surname Steele. They referred to each other as husband and wife to neighbors. When one later sought spousal benefits, the shared surname helped satisfy the holding-out element for common-law marriage.
A telephone company compiled white pages by listing subscribers alphabetically by surname. A rival directory copied those listings. The court held that the alphabetical arrangement by surname lacked the creativity required for copyright protection.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A state law limited the surnames parents could give their children at birth. The statute was challenged as burdening a fundamental right. The court applied rational-basis review because the claimed right was not fundamental.
A divorcing spouse remained listed as beneficiary under the former spouse's ERISA plan because the plan documents still used the married surname. The state revocation statute was preempted, leaving the designation intact.
A 911 caller identified the assailant by the surname Davis. Officers used that name to locate and arrest the suspect. The statement was admitted as nontestimonial because it was made to obtain emergency assistance.
Officers approached a laundry whose sign displayed the surname Toy. The occupant slammed the door and fled. The court examined whether the officers' entry was supported by probable cause or exigent circumstances.
No. A shared surname is only one indication of holding out. The parties must also exchange consents and cohabit. Private messages stating they were not married can negate the consent element even when a surname is shared publicly.
Supporting sources
A detailed cohabitation agreement stating the parties do not intend to marry unless they hold a formal ceremony can override later public use of a common surname. Courts treat the written disclaimer as strong evidence that consents were never exchanged.
Supporting sources
Mere continued use of the surname in the firm name does not by itself impose liability on a dissociated partner. Liability arises only if the third party reasonably believes the former partner remains and lacks notice of dissociation.
Supporting sources
…Henne v. Wright , 904 F. 2d 1208, 1214-1215 (CA8 1990) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a claim that state law restricting surnames that could be given to children at birth implicates a "fundamental right"); Walls v. Petersburg , 895 F. 2d 188, 193 (CA4 1990) (relying on Bowers in rejecting substantive-due-process…