Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Blonquist v. Summit County

Utah Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1971No. 11908Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCrockett, Justice

(concurring as to the remand for trial, but dissenting in part as to the basis thereof).

I concur in the remand of this case for a trial. But it is my opinion that it should be for a plenary trial on all issues, including whether the defendant public officials failed to act in good faith; and that unless that proposition is proved, no liability should be imposed upon them.

The proposition I thus advocate is in conformity with the theory of the case as it has thus far proceeded, according to the contentions made by the plaintiffs themselves in the trial court, and in this court on appeal. Our…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Rottkamp v. YoungAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
  2. White v. TowersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Rottkamp v. YoungNew York Court of Appeals · 1965
  4. Stiebitz v. MahoneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
  5. Sheffield v. TurnerUtah Supreme Court · 2003

11 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