Legal Opinion

Houghton v. Department of Health

Utah Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 2008No. 20070197PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARRISH, Justice:

INTRODUCTION

11 This interlocutory appeal presents two issues. The first concerns the timeliness of the petition for interlocutory review. We hold that the petition was timely. The see-ond concerns the district court's decertification of a class of plaintiffs suing the State to recover attorney fees pursuant to State v. McCoy.1 We hold that the district court erroneously interpreted the law when it concluded that no common issues of fact predominated because calculating reasonable attorney fees involved a fact-intensive inquiry. In the context of a McCoy claim, reasonable…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. United Services Automobile Association v. HillsNebraska Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Laub v. SOUTH CENTRAL UTAH TELEPHONE ASS'NUtah Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Richardson v. Arizona Fuels Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Washington Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. HammettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1964
  5. Houghton v. Department of HealthUtah Supreme Court · 2005

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. BakerUtah Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Salt Lake County v. Butler, Crockett & Walsh Development Corp.Court of Appeals of Utah · 2013
  3. Butler v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day SaintsUtah Supreme Court · 2014
  4. Jaques v. Midway Auto Plaza, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Maak v. IHC Health Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Utah · 2016

4 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