Legal Opinion

Midvale City Corp. v. Haltom

Utah Supreme Court

Decided May 16, 2003No. 20010794PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JACKSON, Judge:

T1 Defendants John Haltom and Doctor John's, Inc. (Dr. John's) appeal the trial court's issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting Dr. John's from doing business in Midvale City. We affirm.

*33812 Associate Chief Justice Durrant, Justice Russon, and Justice Wilkins concur in Judge Jackson's opinion. However, Associate Chief Justice Durrant, joined by Justice Russon and Justice Wilkins, writes separately to set forth an alternative rationale for denying Dr. John's facial challenge, to address Dr. John's "as applied" challenge, and to clarify that the "good cause" exception does not…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for VincentSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Anderson Development Co. v. TobiasUtah Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of RoyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
  3. State v. BriggsUtah Supreme Court · 2008
  4. State v. RobertsUtah Supreme Court · 2015
  5. Provo City Corp. v. ThompsonUtah Supreme Court · 2004

10 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