Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Allen v. Moyer

Utah Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 2011No. 20090841Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partChief Justice Durham

I concur with the majority's analysis on the applicability of claim preclusion to small claims judgments. On grounds of fairness and equity, however, I would apply the rule announced today only prospectively.

121 First, the rationale we apply today was not a foregone conclusion to anyone reviewing our holding in Faux v. Mickelsen, in which we observed the following:

The general purpose ... of the [Small Claims] Act is to dispose of minor money disputes by dispensing speedy justice between the parties.... Faux and Nacey's counterclaim consisted of several causes of action and alleged damages in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Turner v. Hi-Country Homeowners Ass'nUtah Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Faux v. MickelsenUtah Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Kawamoto v. FrattoUtah Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Dennis v. VasquezCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API