Legal Opinion
Smith v. Price Development Co.
Utah Supreme Court
Decided December 2, 2005No. 20040675PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PARRISH, Justice:
¶ 1 Following a jury trial, plaintiffs Armand and Virginia Smith obtained a substantial punitive damages award against defendant Fairfax Realty, Inc. The State of Utah claimed a share of the award pursuant to the 1989 version of Utah’s split recovery provision, which gave the State an interest in qualifying punitive damages awards. The Smiths challenged the constitutionality of the provision, and the district court ruled in their favor, holding that it effected an unconstitutional taking of the Smiths’ property in violation of article I, section 22 of the Utah Constitution…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Brown v. Legal Foundation of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- McCullough v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Colman v. Utah State Land BoardUtah Supreme Court · 1990
- Evans Ex Rel. Kutch v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Bingham v. Roosevelt City Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 2010
- Stevens v. LaVerkin CityCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2008
- Trans-Western Petroleum, Inc. v. United States Gypsum Co.Utah Supreme Court · 2016
- Utah Public Employees Ass'n v. StateUtah Supreme Court · 2006
- Engquist v. Oregon Department of AgricultureCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.