Keller v. Chournos
Utah Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Both parties have filed petitions for rehearing. The only point presented by appellant is that the court erred in granting the motion to strike the bill of exceptions. This matter was fully discussed in the principal opinion and nothing new is presented to make it necessary to reexamine that point.
Respondent’s petition submits three items, by one of which it is claimed that defendant was erroneously charged with one-half of $1,530 paid to him as salary. This is a matter of evidence and not before us; but, if it could be considered, we see no reason why it should not be considered as an item…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Keller v. ChournosUtah Supreme Court · 1938
3Cited by3 opinions
- Woodmont, Inc. v. DanielsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1961
- Dairy Distributors, Inc. v. Local Union 976Utah Supreme Court · 1964
- Woodmont, Inc. v. S. DanielsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1961