Legal Opinion

Motzkus v. Carroll

Utah Supreme Court

Decided March 10, 1958No. 8706PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WADE, Justice.

Does the evidence in this case require a holding that a boundary line by acquiescence has been established at the old fence between the Bank-Motzkus tract on the north and the Kempton-Carroll tract which adjoins it on the south? This is the determinative question to be answered on this appeal. Although there are conflicting contentions both as to the inferences to be drawn from established facts and as to what facts have bee'n established, a careful study of the transcript shows no genuine issue as to any material fact in the case. From such study we conclude that the answer to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Baldwin v. . BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
  2. Tripp v. BagleyUtah Supreme Court · 1928
  3. In Re Swan's EstateUtah Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Holmes v. JudgeUtah Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Brown v. MillinerUtah Supreme Court · 1951

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Halladay v. CluffUtah Supreme Court · 1984
  2. King v. FronkUtah Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Lane v. WalkerUtah Supreme Court · 1973
  4. JOHNSON REAL ESTATE COMPANY v. NielsonUtah Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Brown v. Peterson Development Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1980

11 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