Legal Opinion
State v. One Lot of Personal Property
Utah Supreme Court
Decided April 30, 2004No. 20020290PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PARRISH, Justice:
¶ 1 Theodore and Christine McKinley appeal from the district court’s denial of then-motion for attorney fees. The McKinleys defended their interest in a piece of real property against a forfeiture claim brought by the State of Utah pursuant to section 58-37-13 of the Utah Controlled Substances Act. After the State dismissed its forfeiture claim against the McKinleys’ property, the McKin-leys sought an award of attorney fees under Utah Code section 24-1-11, which was enacted after the events giving rise to the forfeiture action but prior to the filing of the forfeiture…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Farrar v. HobbySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- State v. PenaUtah Supreme Court · 1994
- Martin v. HadixSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Aerotech, Inc. v. Estes IndustriesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
- Dan Cantrell and Larry Holt v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Afl-Cio, Local 2021Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Uhrhahn Construction & Design, Inc. v. HopkinsCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2008
- Summit Water Distribution Co. v. Summit CountyUtah Supreme Court · 2005
- Carlson Distributing Co. v. Salt Lake Brewing Co.Court of Appeals of Utah · 2004
- Lane Myers Construction, LLC v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.Court of Appeals of Utah · 2012
- State ex rel. D.K. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2006
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.