Legal Opinion

Russell Packard Development, Inc. v. Carson

Utah Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 2005No. 20030822PublishedCited by 99 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ON CERTIORARI TO THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

DURRANT, Justice:

¶ 1 In this case, the defendants affirmatively concealed the plaintiffs’ causes of action during a significant portion, but not all, of the relevant statute of limitations period. Although the plaintiffs were placed on inquiry notice of the defendants’ fraudulent behavior within the relevant statute of limitations period, the plaintiffs failed to file their complaint until after that period expired. Due to this failure, the district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims as untimely. On appeal, the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Bailey v. GloverSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  2. Myers v. McDonaldUtah Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Berenda v. LangfordUtah Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Warren v. Provo City Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Baldwin v. BurtonUtah Supreme Court · 1993

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

3Cited by99 opinions

  1. Ockey v. LehmerUtah Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Bistline v. ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019
  3. Berneau v. MartinoUtah Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Buchwald v. Renco Group, Inc. (In Re Magnesium Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2009
  5. Moore v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2007

94 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