Legal Opinion
Mud Control Laboratories v. Covey
Utah Supreme Court
Decided April 26, 1954No. 8025, 8039PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CROCKETT, Justice.
These two actions were brought by plain- ■ tiffs to recover for materials furnished defendants for use in oil drilling operations. Judgment was for plaintiffs, except that Mud Control was not allowed recovery for that portion of its materials which were sold. before it qualified to do business in the state ■of Utah.
Mud Control initiated this appeal, challenging the limitation on its judgment just referred to; the defendants cross appealed in the Mud Control case and appealed against Christensen, assailing the validity of both judgments in favor of the plaintiffs.
We first…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Sonneborn Brothers v. CuretonSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Sioux Remedy Co. v. CopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Toomer's Estate v. Union Pac. R. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1951
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Smith v. BatchelorUtah Supreme Court · 1992
- Hoefer v. HallNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1965
- Blocker Exploration Co. v. Frontier Exploration, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1987
- Alexander Bisno and Sally Bisno v. Marvin F. HydeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1961
- Long Island Lighting Co. v. Bokum Resources Corp.United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · 1983
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.