Legal Opinion

D & L SUPPLY v. Saurini

Utah Supreme Court

Decided June 8, 1989No. 860261PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ZIMMERMAN, Justice:

John Saurini appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of D & L Supply for money owed on an open account. Saurini asserts that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over him and that in fixing the amount owed D & L, the trial court relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence. We affirm.

The facts are straightforward. D & L, a Utah corporation, filed an action against Saurini for sums due D & L for goods sold to a Colorado corporation owned in part by Saurini. D & L alleged in its complaint that Saurini agreed to be personally liable for orders he…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Franklin Financial v. New Empire Development Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Themy v. Seagull Enterprises, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Norton v. BlackhamUtah Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Thornock v. CookUtah Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Pentecost v. HarwardUtah Supreme Court · 1985

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Hansen v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Harline v. BarkerUtah Supreme Court · 1996
  3. GNS PARTNERSHIP v. FullmerCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1994
  4. Thayne v. Beneficial Utah, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Gramlich v. MunseyUtah Supreme Court · 1992

22 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