Legal Opinion

Dansie v. City of Herriman

Utah Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 2006No. 20050024PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NEHRING, Justice:

INTRODUCTION

¶ 1 The City of Herriman was added to the roster of Utah cities in 1999. Soon thereafter, Herriman decided that it would provide water to its residents through a municipal water system. At the time, Herriman owned no water, no wells, nor any delivery infrastructure, but the Herriman Pipeline and Development Co. (“Company”) did. The City, set about to acquire, the Company’s assets. It succeeded, much to the distress of a number of the Company’s shareholders, who sued the City and certain directors of the Company. Defendants filed a succession of summary judgment…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. In Re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions. Joseph B. KauffmanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1973
  2. Hermansen v. TasulisUtah Supreme Court · 2002
  3. James v. PrestonCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1987
  4. Aurora Credit Services, Inc. v. Liberty West Development, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Arndt v. First Interstate Bank of Utah N.A.Utah Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Patterson v. PattersonUtah Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Barnes v. HarrisCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015
  3. Angel Investors, LLC v. GarrityUtah Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Torian v. CraigUtah Supreme Court · 2012
  5. McLaughlin v. SchenckUtah Supreme Court · 2009

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

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

Powered by the Exa API