Legal Opinion

Butler, Crockett & Walsh Development Corp. v. Pinecrest Pipeline Operating Co.

Utah Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1996No. 930205, 930448 and 930464PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ZIMMERMAN, Chief Justice:

This appeal involves two primary issues: (i) access to a road/trail called Burrs’ Lane; and (ii) the ownership of and access to a waterworks that provides the sole source of drinking water to a development commonly known as “The Groves” located in the Pine-crest area of Emigration Canyon. In addition, the various parties challenge the district court’s (i) imposition of sanctions on pro se plaintiffiattorney John Walsh; and (ii) refusal to impose sanctions on defendants’ attorneys. We affirm the substance of the district court’s judgment but reverse the imposition of…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. State v. PenaUtah Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State v. DunnUtah Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. BishopUtah Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State v. WalkerUtah Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Matter of Estate of BartellUtah Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Monson v. CarverUtah Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Reighard v. YatesUtah Supreme Court · 2012
  3. State v. CrosbyUtah Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State v. ButterfieldUtah Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Holmes Development, LLC v. CookUtah Supreme Court · 2002

31 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