Legal Opinion

Nielson v. Gurley

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided November 21, 1994No. 930327-CAPublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ORME, Associate Presiding Judge:

Dale Gurley, an employee of the State of Utah, appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Parker M. Nielson. We vacate the judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

FACTS

Nielson trains hunting dogs as a hobby. To facilitate his hobby, Nielson obtained a permit from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) and negotiated a special use lease agreement with the State of Utah, Division of State Lands and Forestry, for the purpose of “releasing and propagating game-birds for hunting dog training.” During the morning of September 8, 1990,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Federal Trade Commission v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
  2. Madsen v. BorthickUtah Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. LamoreauxCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1989
  4. Matter of Marriage of MullinaxOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Adamson Et Ux. v. BrockbankUtah Supreme Court · 1947

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. ProMax Development Corp. v. RaileUtah Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Hart v. Salt Lake County CommissionCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1997
  3. State v. GarnerUtah Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Central Utah Water Conservancy District v. KingUtah Supreme Court · 2013
  5. In Re Rights to the Use of WaterUtah Supreme Court · 2004

15 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