Cheever v. Schramm
Utah Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
MAUGHAN, Justice:
Before us is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, who sued defendants for breach of contract. Defendants assert here that no contract came into existence, and even if it did, defendants were entitled to rescind; because of plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentations. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, 1 we affirm the district court judgment. Costs to respondents.
Plaintiffs began an automobile repair business known as C & B Sports Car Service Center about September of 1975. They had Sisken Investment Company (hereinafter referred to as…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pace v. ParrishUtah Supreme Court · 1952
- Johnson v. AllenUtah Supreme Court · 1945
- Hardy v. HendricksonUtah Supreme Court · 1972
- Oberg v. SandersUtah Supreme Court · 1947
- McMillion v. McMillionColorado Court of Appeals · 1974
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- In Re CurtisUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · 1984
- Peterson v. WirumAlaska Supreme Court · 1981
- Mind & Motion Utah Investments, LLC v. Celtic Bank Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 2016
- Von Hake v. ThomasUtah Supreme Court · 1985
- Union Bank v. SwensonUtah Supreme Court · 1985
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.