Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pyper v. Bond

Utah Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 2011No. 20091025Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Nehring

129 I concur in Part I of the majority's opinion.

{30 I am compelled to dissent, however, from the majority's conclusion that Messrs. Bond and Dorius conducted themselves in a *582manner that was unfair to Mr. Pyper. In my view, it was unreasonable for the court of appeals to hold that Mr. Pyper's former lawyers took unfair advantage of his ignorance of the redemption process when they refused to negotiate a settlement or communicate with Mr. Pyper.

31 First, I am troubled by the majority's pejorative characterization of Messrs. Bond's and Dorius's nonparticipation in settlement negotiations or…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Pyper v. BondCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API