Legal Opinion

Petersen v. Ohio Copper Co.

Utah Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 1928No. 4611PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThurman, C. J.

Respondent has moved to dismiss the appeal and cited many cases in support of the motion. Appellants have made no reply thereto, but the motion involves an important question of practice and is of sufficient importance to justify a somewhat extended review.

The decree was filed December 29, 1926. No notice was given by respondent, so that appellant had six months within which to file notice of intention to move for a new trial or to file and serve their notice of appeal. On June 25, 1927, appellants served upon respondent their notice of intention to move for a new trial and filed the same…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Everett v. JonesUtah Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Watson v. MayberryUtah Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Bell v. StaackeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Felt v. CookUtah Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Warnock Insurance Agency v. Peterson Real Estate Investment Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1909

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bailey v. Sound Lab, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1984
  2. State v. MorganUtah Supreme Court · 1974
  3. State v. WoodUtah Supreme Court · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API