Shayne v. Stanley & Sons, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Erickson v. Sorensen (Utah Ct. App. 1994)
- Phillips v. JCM Development Corp. (Utah 1983)
- State v. Johnson (Utah 2017)
- State v. Johnson (Utah 2017)
- State v. Johnson (Utah 2017)
- Patterson v. Patterson (Utah 2011)
- Rose v. Provo City (Utah Ct. App. 2003)
- State ex rel. M.W. (Utah 2000)
- Zions First National Bank, N.A. v. National American Title Insurance Co. (Utah 1988)
- Duckett v. Olsen (Utah 1985)
- Almon, Inc. v. Utah Liquor Control Commission (Utah 1985)
- Utah County v. Brown (Utah 1983)
- Schaer v. STATE BY & THROUGH UTAH DEPT. (Utah 1983)
- Franklin Financial v. New Empire Development Co. (Utah 1983)
- Schaer v. State ex rel. Utah Department of Transportation (Utah 1983)
- Burgers v. Maiben (Utah 1982)
- Turtle Management, Inc. v. Haggis Management, Inc. (Utah 1982)
- Williams v. State Farm Insurance Co. (Utah 1982)
- Higgins v. City of Fillmore (Utah 1981)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Plaintiff appeals from summary judgment granted to defendants and the dismissal of his complaint, by the District Court of Duchesne County, Utah. The complaint alleged fraud, and breach of confidential relationship against all of the defendants and conflict of interest on the part of Defendant George B. Stanley (who, plaintiff alleged, was plaintiff’s legal counsel) in the conveyance of certain real property located in Duchesne County, Utah.
The Court entered its summary judgment 1 on the basis of what it termed “findings of undisputed facts”. 2 Plaintiff *776 has not objected to this procedure below or on appeal, and has not designated any of these findings as facts which are in dispute.
The record, particularly plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories, supports the Court’s findings that there is no material fact in dispute, and that the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In his answers to defendants’ interrogatories, plaintiff stated that he could not designate any specific fraud on the part of defendants, but had “instigated this action in order to determine what acts were instigated by defendants . ■ . . to deceive plaintiff.” See Rule 9(b), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure which requires fraud to be pleaded with particularity.
Plaintiff also admitted that he had never engaged the services of George B. Stanley as his legal counsel. Similarly, plaintiff stated that he had not engaged the services of the title insurance company prior to the time of the conveyance of the real property, which conveyance he alleged was fraudulent.
There is, in the record, substantial basis for the District Court to have determined that the material facts were not genuinely in dispute.
Plaintiff also attempts to raise an allegation of negligence on the part of defendants, here on appeal. ' As he did not raise this issue below, we do not discuss it. 3 Affirmed. Costs to defendants.
. Rule 56, Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
. While we do not find any specific authority in our rules of civil procedure for findings in a case where summary judgment is granted, this Court concludes that such findings may be helpful in some cases. We believe, however, if the District Court chooses to enter such findings that counsel for both parties should be given an opportunity to stipulate to such facts, *776 or the Court should identify those parts of the record which sustain its finding that the fact is undisputed.
. Nelson v. Newman, Utah, 583 P.2d 601 (1978); Maltby v. Cox Construction Co., Inc., Utah, 598 P.2d 336 (1979).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.