Legal Opinion

Haslem v. Ottosen

Utah Supreme Court

Decided September 10, 1984No. 18749PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOWE, Justice:

This case is before us on plaintiffs’ interlocutory appeal which we granted. Plain tiffs sought to reform a warranty deed and to recover a Vn mineral interest that purportedly passed to defendants under Utah’s after-acquired title statute, U.C.A., 1953, § 57-1-10. Defendants counterclaimed, pleaded the statute of limitations (U.C.A., 1953, § 78-12-26(3)) as a defense to the complaint, and moved for partial summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that the statute of limitations barred reformation of the deed by the plaintiffs, that they had breached their…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Sullivan v. BarnettTexas Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Miles v. MartinTexas Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Bowen v. Riverton CityUtah Supreme Court · 1982
  4. McClung v. LawrenceTexas Supreme Court · 1968
  5. DOXEY-LAYTON COMPANY v. ClarkUtah Supreme Court · 1976

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Koulis v. Standard Oil Co. of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1987
  2. Cherokee Water Co. v. ForderhauseCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1987
  3. Guardian State Bank v. StanglUtah Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Boyles Bros. Drilling Co. v. Orion Industries, Ltd.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1988
  5. West One Trust Co. v. MorrisonCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1993

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