Legal Opinion

Kjar v. Brimley

Utah Supreme Court

Decided May 8, 1972No. 12441PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CALLISTER, Chief Justice:

Plaintiffs initiated this action to recover the statutory penalty (three times the amount of interest paid, as provided in Section 15-1-7, U.C.A.1953) on an alleged loan transaction with defendants, wherein an alleged usurious rate of interest was exacted. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted; plaintiffs appealed therefrom.

At the inception of this opinion it should he related that in defendants’ motion for summary judgment there was no assertion that there was no genuine issue as to a material fact but merely a claim that defendants…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. West Pico Furniture Co. v. Pacific Finance LoansCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Britz v. KinsvaterArizona Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Kline v. RobinsonNevada Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Rizo v. MacBethAlaska Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Bybee v. StuartUtah Supreme Court · 1948

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Winegar v. Froerer Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1991
  2. W. M. Barnes Co. v. Sohio Natural Resources Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Bown v. LovelandUtah Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Holden v. SalvadoreSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2009
  5. Swallow Ranches, Inc. v. BidartCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975

9 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