Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Parker v. Bamberger

Utah Supreme Court

Decided August 21, 1941No. 6178Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMoffat, Chief Justice

While I concur in the results reached by the prevailing opinion on the merits of this case, I nevertheless feel that our decision heretofore rendered in this case (reported in, Utah, 101 P. 2d 372) should be affirmed with respsect to the time within which a proposed bill of exceptions, with or without amendments, should be presented to the trial court for settlement.

I cannot agree that the word “thereafter” contained in the statute ( § 104-39-4, R. S. U. 1933) can refer to no point of time where no amendments are proposed by the adverse party, or if proposed are allowed. Certainly there is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Houghton v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Love v. St. Joseph Stock Yards Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Parker v. BambergerUtah Supreme Court · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API