Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Crookston v. Fire Insurance Exchange

Utah Supreme Court

Decided June 28, 1991No. 880034Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partStewart, Justice

I agree with much of what the majority states about the standards to be employed under Rule 59(a)(5) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, but I have reservations about several points in the opinion concerning the trial and appellate standards for dealing with motions for new trials, and I disagree with the ultimate disposition of the punitive damages issue. I concur in all other parts of the opinion.

The sole issue raised on appeal in this case with respect to the award of punitive damages is that they were “excessive” under Rule 59(a)(5) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 59(a)…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bennion v. LeGrand Johnson Construction Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Nelson v. TrujilloUtah Supreme Court · 1982
  3. King v. Union Pac. R. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Goddard v. HickmanUtah Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Saltas v. AffleckUtah Supreme Court · 1940

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