Carrier v. Pro-Tech Restoration
Utah Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
ON CERTIORARI TO THE UTAH COURT OF APPEARS
ZIMMERMAN, Chief Justice:
Defendant Pro-Tech Restoration (“Pro-Tech”) seeks review of the court of appeals’ decision ordering a new trial because the trial court had incorrectly determined that Pro-Tech and defendant William Smith had sufficiently disparate interests to warrant separate allocations of peremptory challenges under rule 47 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See Carrier v. Pro-Tech Restoration, 909 P.2d 271 (Ct.App.1995); cert. granted, 920 P.2d 1194 (Utah 1996). Pro-Tech argues that the court of appeals applied the wrong standard of…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- State v. PenaUtah Supreme Court · 1994
- Hopt v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- State v. MenziesUtah Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. BishopUtah Supreme Court · 1988
- Scharf v. BMG Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1985
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Bailey v. BaylesUtah Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. ThomasUtah Supreme Court · 1998
- MacRis & Associates, Inc. v. Neways, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 2000
- State v. KillpackUtah Supreme Court · 2008
- Gallivan v. WalkerUtah Supreme Court · 2002
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.