Legal Opinion
Rickenberg v. Capitol Garage
Utah Supreme Court
Decided July 9, 1926No. 4403PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFrick, J.
The respondent commenced this action in claim and delivery (replevin) pursuant to our statute to recover possession of a certain automobile. The complaint is in the usual form in such actions. The appellant, after denying respondent’s ownership and right to possession of the automobile, also set up an affirmative defense claiming the right of possession of the automobile for reasons which will hereinafter more fully appear.
The case was tried to the district court without a jury, upon the evidence produced by the respective parties. The court in substance found that on the 1st day of November,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cook v. Packard Motor Car Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1914
- Simpson v. . St. JohnNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Cache Auto Co. v. Central GarageUtah Supreme Court · 1923
- Consolidated National Bank v. CunninghamArizona Supreme Court · 1925
- Good v. Board of Police CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1920
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- MacK Motor Truck Corporation v. WolfeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1957
- Younger v. PlunkettDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1975
- Murrell v. Trio Towing Service, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
- Wilkinson v. TownsendCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
- T. R. Ltd. v. LeeCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1983
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.