Legal Opinion

Roe v. Lundstrom

Utah Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 1936No. 5622PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EVANS, District Judge.

This is an action in tort to recover damages for an alleged unlawful and malicious interference with plaintiffs’ business. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants Lundstrom, Merkeley, and Pederson, as city commissioners of Logan City, through Smith, a police officer, prevented the public from entering the plaintiffs’ place of business where the plaintiffs proposed to conduct a sale of seasonable merchandise recently purchased by them in receivership proceedings, and for which interference they seek actual and punitive damages.

The defendants seek to justify their conduct by…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Berry v. DonovanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
  2. Revert v. HesseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Mox Incorporated v. WoodsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Cumberland Glass Manufacturing Co. v. DeWittCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1913
  5. Mock v. City of Santa RosaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Oman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1949
  2. Reeves v. MeltonCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1974
  3. Anderson v. Granite School DistrictUtah Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Garner v. ThomasUtah Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Tetirick, Gdn.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938

2 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