Legal Opinion
Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds v. Jordanelle Special Service District
Court of Appeals of Utah
Decided September 7, 2001No. 990910-CAPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BENCH, Judge:
¶ 1 Plaintiffs (collectively "Investors") appeal the trial court's order dismissing their action because a proper summons had not been served within the thirty-day time period allowed by Utah Code Ann. § 17A-8-229 (1999). We affirm.
*87BACKGROUND
¶ 2 Investors are property owners within the boundaries of Defendant Jordanelle Special Improvement District (Jordanelle). In 1999, Jordanelle passed an ordinance levying an assessment against certain properties within its district, including property owned by Investors, to pay for sewage system improvements. The effective date of the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Lyon v. BurtonUtah Supreme Court · 2000
- Franklin Financial v. New Empire Development Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1983
- Berrett v. Purser & EdwardsUtah Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. HuntUtah Supreme Court · 1995
- O'Keefe v. Utah State Retirement BoardUtah Supreme Court · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kenny v. RichCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2008
- Weber County v. Ogden TreceUtah Supreme Court · 2013
- 3D Construction & Development, L.L.C. v. Old Standard Life Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Utah · 2005
- Jordan Credit Union v. SullivanCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2022
- Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds v. Jordanelle Special Service DistrictCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2001
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.