Madsen v. Borthick
Utah Supreme Court
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
- Hans v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Muskopf v. Corning Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Brown v. Wichita State UniversitySupreme Court of Kansas · 1976
- Standiford v. Salt Lake City Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1980
- Railroad Co. v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by59 opinions
- Trimble v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1985
- Madsen v. BorthickUtah Supreme Court · 1988
- Lyon v. BurtonUtah Supreme Court · 2000
- GeoMetWatch v. BehuninCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2022
- State v. GreenUtah Supreme Court · 2004
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.