Legal Opinion

Kettner v. Snow

Utah Supreme Court

Decided October 5, 1962No. 9659PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CROCKETT, Justice.

Plaintiffs (defendants below) seek to pro-. hibit the district court from further proceeding after it had granted a new trial based upon a motion not timely filed. 1

The defendants Watkins (plaintiffs below) commenced the original action to recover for personal injuries and property damages resulting from an automobile collision. A jury returned a verdict of no cause of action and judgment was entered thereon November 30, 1961. Our rule on new trials, 59(b), provides that “A motion for a new trial shall be served not later than 10 days after the entry of judgment.” Defendants…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Atwood v. Cox, District JudgeUtah Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Broadbent v. GibsonUtah Supreme Court · 1943
  3. National Life Ins. Co. v. KohnOhio Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Uptown Appliance & Radio Co., Inc. v. FLINTUtah Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Frost v. District Court of First Judicial District Ex Rel. Box Elder CountyUtah Supreme Court · 1938

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Gressman v. StateUtah Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Cook v. GardnerUtah Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Utah State Building Board v. Walsh Plumbing CompanyUtah Supreme Court · 1965
  4. State v. BundyUtah Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Preece v. PreeceUtah Supreme Court · 1984

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