Legal Opinion
Tuck v. Godfrey
Court of Appeals of Utah
Decided April 22, 1999No. 981118-CAPublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BILLINGS, J.
¶ 1 Appellant S. Chad Godfrey appeals the trial court’s entry of a default judgment against him for failure to comply with discovery requirements. We affirm.
FACTS
¶ 2 This case originated as a dispute over whether defendants S. Chad Godfrey (God-frey) and Beehive House (Beehive) were required to repay funds given them by plaintiff Mary Tuck (Tuck). 1 Beehive is owned by B. Ralph Godfrey (Ralph Godfrey), and operated by his family. At times relevant to this action, Godfrey was employed by Beehive or Beehive Health, an affiliated company.
¶ 3 For about two years, until late in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Ong International (U.S.A.) Inc. v. 11th Avenue Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1993
- Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. SchettlerCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1989
- Kennecott Corp. v. Utah State Tax CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1991
- Morton v. Continental Baking Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1997
- First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. SchamanekUtah Supreme Court · 1984
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Kilpatrick v. Bullough Abatement, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 2008
- Pete v. YoungbloodCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2006
- Hales v. OldroydCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2000
- DAYNIGHT, LLC v. Mobilight, Inc.Court of Appeals of Utah · 2011
- Joseph v. Salt Lake City Civil Service CommissionCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2002
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.