Workman v. Nagle Construction, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Utah
1ConcurrenceBench, Judge
I agree that the class judgment awarded to the Division of Consumer Protection (Division), and later assigned to Workman, is void, but on different grounds. While the majority rests its decision upon a procedural defect, with which I do not necessarily disagree, I believe that under the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (the Act), no class action may be maintained in the present case. Any class judgment would therefore be void, even if procedurally correct under section 13-11-20 of the Act.
It is clear from the pleadings that the only cause of action alleged against defen*755dant is for a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hiltsley v. RyderUtah Supreme Court · 1987
- State Ex Rel. Division of Consumer Protection v. GAF Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1988
- Woodworth v. Utah National GuardUtah Supreme Court · 1990