Legal Opinion

Madsen v. Borthick

Utah Supreme Court

Decided January 28, 1983No. 17772PublishedCited by 59 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OAKS, Justice:

Plaintiffs deposited money in Grove Finance Co., a corporation plaintiffs claim is a banking business within the meaning of the state law regulating banks. U.C.A., 1953, § 7-3-1, et seq. 1 Plaintiffs allege that these deposits were made in reasonable reliance upon defendants’ duty to perform specified statutory functions with respect to that institution. 2 Defendants are the State of Utah and its Commissioner of Financial Institutions, who, plaintiffs allege, “wholly failed to discharge” their statutory functions. As a result, plaintiffs allege, Grove Finance Co. has become…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Hans v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  2. Muskopf v. Corning Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Brown v. Wichita State UniversitySupreme Court of Kansas · 1976
  4. Standiford v. Salt Lake City Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Railroad Co. v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1880

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

3Cited by59 opinions

  1. Trimble v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1985
  2. Madsen v. BorthickUtah Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Lyon v. BurtonUtah Supreme Court · 2000
  4. GeoMetWatch v. BehuninCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2022
  5. State v. GreenUtah Supreme Court · 2004

54 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