Legal Opinion

Doty v. Town of Cedar Hills

Utah Supreme Court

Decided November 23, 1982No. 17995PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DURHAM, Justice:

In this action, the plaintiffs below sought to have the annexation of an area known as Manila Phase I by the defendant, Town of Cedar Hills (hereinafter “Cedar Hills”), declared void due to procedural defects in the annexation process. The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, based on its findings that Cedar Hills adopted the annexation ordinance pri- or to its adoption of the policy declaration. Subsequently, based on Rule 59 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Cedar Hills filed a Motion to Amend Judgment or for a New Trial, alleging newly…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Lembach v. CoxUtah Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Frederick May & Company v. DunnUtah Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Gregerson v. JensenUtah Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Universal Investment Company v. Carpets, IncorporatedUtah Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Sweetwater Properties v. Town of AltaUtah Supreme Court · 1981

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. LesleyUtah Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Crestwood Cove Apartments Business Trust v. TurnerUtah Supreme Court · 2007
  3. In Re the Disconnection of Certain Territory From Highland CityUtah Supreme Court · 1983
  4. American Rural Cellular, Inc. v. System Communication Corp.Court of Appeals of Utah · 1997
  5. Hall v. FitzgeraldUtah Supreme Court · 1983

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