Budget System, Inc. v. Budget Loan & Finance Plan
Utah Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
FAUX, District Judge.
By this appeal we are asked to consider the decision in equity which has enjoined appellant corporation, defendant in the district court, from using in its name the word “Budget.” This court accepts the definition and scope of its duty with respect to this appeal as set out in Corey v. Roberts. 1 Accordingly, as to errors assigned, we have considered both questions of law and of fact, keeping in mind, however, the rule that it is our duty to affirm the decision of the trial court, unless the evidence clearly preponderates against the findings and judgment of the trial…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Corey v. RobertsUtah Supreme Court · 1933
- Fidelity Appraisal Co. v. Federal Appraisal Co.California Supreme Court · 1933
- Reynolds & Reynolds Co. v. NorickCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1940
- Bernstein v. FriedmanWyoming Supreme Court · 1945
- American Home Benefit Ass'n v. United American Benefit Ass'nIdaho Supreme Court · 1942
3Cited by14 opinions
- Overstock. Com, Inc. v. SmartBargains, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 2008
- American Airlines v. ChristensenCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
- Discount Muffler Shop, Inc. v. Meineke Realty Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1982
- Allen's Products Company v. GloverUtah Supreme Court · 1966
- American Airlines v. ChristensenCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.