Legal Opinion

Poulsen v. Frear

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided October 9, 1997No. 960484-CAPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BILLINGS, Judge:

Appellant Lynn Poulsen appeals the trial court’s decision of no cause of action in her alienation of affections claim. Appellant claims the trial court made improper comments in its Rule 63(b) certifying order, the trial judge was biased against her, and the trial court improperly awarded Rule 11 sanctions. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

FACTS

Appellant filed a complaint alleging alienation of affections against Karren Frear Poulsen (Frear), and the case was assigned to Judge Tyrone Medley. Appellant appeared pro se throughout the proceedings. Although…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. PenaUtah Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Braley v. CampbellCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1987
  3. Carter v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1994
  4. Jolivet v. CookUtah Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Concepts, Inc. v. First Security Realty Services, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1987

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State in Interest of MLCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1998
  2. Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of UtahUtah Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Freight Tec Management v. ChemexCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2021
  4. Segota v. Young ChryslerCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2020
  5. Osburn v. BottCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2011

3 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