Legal Opinion

Lindsay v. Atkin

Utah Supreme Court

Decided March 21, 1984No. 18638PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DURHAM, Justice:

The question on this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion to correct its earlier order “nunc pro tunc.” The order dismissed Parrish Oil Tools, Inc. (“Parrish Oil Tools”), defendant, from the lawsuit “with prejudice,” and defendant sought a change to reflect a dismissal “without prejudice.” We affirm the trial court’s order.

Plaintiff Lindsay sued appellants Atkin and Nyberg in May 1978 in Duchesne County District Court on a promissory note executed by appellants naming Southern Utah Hay Company (“Southern Utah Hay”) as promisor and Lindsay…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,670 John Bershad v. Bernard P. McDonough and Cudahy CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1972
  2. Richards v. SiddowayUtah Supreme Court · 1970

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Bishop v. GenTec Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State v. RodriguesUtah Supreme Court · 2009
  3. DeVaney v. State, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division Ex Rel. DeVaneyAlaska Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Thomas A. Paulsen Co. v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1989
  5. State v. MoyaCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1991

4 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