Legal Opinion

Dixon v. Pro Image Inc.

Utah Supreme Court

Decided September 14, 1999No. 981661PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RUSSON, Justice.

¶ 1 Plaintiff Daniel E. Dixon appeals from the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of defendants Pro Image Inc., Transition Sports Inc., and Rentrak Corporation. Dixon filed suit against defendants, alleging various breaches of both a consulting agreement and an employment agreement and asserting that defendants wrongfully terminated him. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that certain of Dixon’s claims failed as a matter of law. The district court granted the motion. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTS

¶2 In early 1996,…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.California Supreme Court · 1988
  2. William F. Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corporation, and David C. TjosvoldCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1988
  3. Jane Perlman v. C. Russell Feldmann, Newport Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1955
  4. Winegar v. Froerer Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Alf v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1993

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. WebBank v. American General Annuity Service Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Central Florida Investments, Inc. v. Parkwest AssociatesUtah Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Green River Canal Co. v. ThaynUtah Supreme Court · 2003
  4. DCM Investment Corp. v. Pinecrest Investment Co.Utah Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Marzano v. Proficio Mortgage Ventures, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2013

23 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