Legal Opinion

Sweeney Land Co. v. Kimball

Utah Supreme Court

Decided February 9, 1990No. 880485PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals

DURHAM, Justice:

This case involves conflicting claims to property located in Park City. The trial court ruled that petitioners were entitled to a cotenant interest in the property. The Court of Appeals overturned this judgment and quieted title to the property in respondents Gilbert and Maud Kimball under the principles of estoppel and laches. We reverse and reinstate the ruling of the trial court with respect to petitioners’ cotenant interest.

Petitioners claim that the Court of Appeals (1) misapplied the standard of review for findings of fact by a…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State v. WalkerUtah Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Elder v. McClaskeyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1895
  3. Western Kane County Special Service District No. 1 v. Jackson Cattle Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Beckstrom v. BeckstromUtah Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Olwell v. ClarkUtah Supreme Court · 1982

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Interwest Construction v. PalmerUtah Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State v. PetersenUtah Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Butler, Crockett & Walsh Development Corp. v. Pinecrest Pipeline Operating Co.Utah Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Hansen v. HeathUtah Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Saunders v. SharpCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1990

7 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