Legal Opinion

Woolley v. Wight

Utah Supreme Court

Decided August 20, 1925No. 4303PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThurman, J.

This is a proceeding in mandamus. The plaintiffs are defendants in a case pending in the district court of Salt Lake county. They have filed their answer to the complaint of plaintiff. Since filing their answer one Nathaniel Baldwin, by leave of court, has filed a complaint in intervention, from which it appears that he is an interested party in said cause, and is the party for whose benefit the case is being prosecuted. The plaintiffs herein, as defendants in said cause, have not filed their answers to Baldwin’s complaint, and have attempted to procure his deposition before filing their…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ex Parte NewmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  2. American Casualty Insurance & Security Co. v. FylerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1891
  3. Ex Parte BurtisSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  4. State ex rel. Thatcher v. HornerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884
  5. Ketchum Coal Co. v. ChristensenUtah Supreme Court · 1916

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Mayers v. Bronson, JudgeUtah Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Olson v. District Court of Salt Lake CountyUtah Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Crowther v. District Court of Salt Lake CountyUtah Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Crowther v. District Court of Salt Lake CountyUtah Supreme Court · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API