Atwood v. Cox, District Judge
Utah Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
WOLFE, Justice.
This is an application for a writ of prohibition in regard to which an alternative writ was issued. The question is, Shall it be made permanent? The basis for the application was that the amended accusation and complaint does not state a cause of action, and that therefore the trial court is without jurisdiction to proceed to try the case on its merits. So much of the substance of the amended accusation and complaint by J. C. Tuft and Wm. C. Crook, plaintiffs, against John L. Atwood, defendant, as is necessary to under stand the points herein decided is hereunder stated:…
2Cases cited68 opinions
- Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Matter of RuefCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- In re EvansUtah Supreme Court · 1913
- County Court v. BoremanWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1890
- Traffic Truck Sales Co. v. Justice's CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- Attorney General of Utah v. PomeroyUtah Supreme Court · 1937
- Broadbent v. GibsonUtah Supreme Court · 1943
- Adoption B.B. v. R.K.B.Utah Supreme Court · 2017
- Thompson v. Harris, Warden. Demmick v. SameUtah Supreme Court · 1943
- Wasatch Oil Refining Co. v. Wade, JudgeUtah Supreme Court · 1936
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.