Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hill v. Varner

Utah Supreme Court

Decided November 29, 1955No. 8377Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWorthen', Justice

'I am of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

I am unable to agree, however, on the matter of costs and believe that the defendant should recover costs, being the prevailing party in this court.

I am not only unable to agree with Mr. Justice HENRIOD that the testimony of defendant is entirely unworthy of belief, but I am likewise out of accord with the opinions of Mr. Chief Justice McDON-OUGH and Mr. Justice CROCKETT. In my opinion plaintiff’s counsel on cross examination elicited testimony sufficient to support a judgment in…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kirkham v. SpencerUtah Supreme Court · 1955

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

Powered by the Exa API