Legal Opinion

Bradbury v. Valencia

Utah Supreme Court

Decided June 9, 2000No. 981722PublishedCited by 134 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WILKINS, Justice:

¶1 Phil and Opal Valencia appeal the trial court's order granting Randy and Dawn Bradbury's motion for summary judgment. We conclude we lack jurisdiction because the Valencias have not appealed from a final order and no exception to the final judgment rule has been met. We therefore dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 In September 1996, the Bradburys filed a complaint against the Valencias. 1 The complaint alleged that the Bradburys had a legal right-of-way along a road that ran next to their house and land. The complaint further alleged that the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. A.J. MacKay Co. v. Okland Construction Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Kennecott Corp. v. Utah State Tax CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1991
  3. ProMax Development Corp. v. RaileUtah Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Kennedy v. New Era Industries, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1979
  5. U.P.C., Inc. v. R.O.A. General, Inc.Court of Appeals of Utah · 1999

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

3Cited by134 opinions

  1. America West Bank Members L.C. v. StateUtah Supreme Court · 2014
  2. State v. ClarkUtah Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Miller v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co.Utah Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Loffredo v. HoltUtah Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Powell v. CannonUtah Supreme Court · 2008

129 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