Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hardy v. Sagacious Gracegreen2 sentences2021Rather, he makes this conclusory assertion: “Even if this Court does not reverse the trial court’s determinations as to the issue of authority and voidability of the REPC, this Court can and should reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the Breach of Warranty claim against Mower personally.” More significantly, in citing the Restatement, Hardy does not address the rather obvious condition placed on an implied warranty of authority: A person who purports to make a contract, representation, or conveyance to or with a third party on behalf of another person, lacking power to bind that person, giv 2021See Hawkins, 2016 UT App 9, ¶ 60 . 20190063-CA 8 2021 UT App 23 Hardy v. Sagacious Grace manager. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hawkinsgreen1 sentence2021See Hawkins, 2016 UT App 9, ¶ 60 . 20190063-CA 8 2021 UT App 23 Hardy v. Sagacious Grace manager. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wintergreen1 sentence2021See, e.g., State v. Winter, 477 A.2d 323, 327 (N.J. 1984) (“[W]hen weighing the effectiveness of curative instructions, a reviewing court should give equal deference to the determination of the trial court.”); see also Wilson, 2012 UT 43, ¶ 56 (stating that “any substantial doubt about the effectiveness of curative instructions should be resolved in favor of the disadvantaged party”). ¶61 Second, with regard to whether the errors contained in the jury instructions made a difference to the outcome of the trial, the trial court noted that the jury found in favor of the Petersons on the two cause | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. IHC Hospitals, Inc.green1 sentence2021See, e.g., State v. Winter, 477 A.2d 323, 327 (N.J. 1984) (“[W]hen weighing the effectiveness of curative instructions, a reviewing court should give equal deference to the determination of the trial court.”); see also Wilson, 2012 UT 43, ¶ 56 (stating that “any substantial doubt about the effectiveness of curative instructions should be resolved in favor of the disadvantaged party”). ¶61 Second, with regard to whether the errors contained in the jury instructions made a difference to the outcome of the trial, the trial court noted that the jury found in favor of the Petersons on the two cause | 1 | 1 |
SME Industries, Inc. v. Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2012Although a breach of warranty claim "sounds in strict liability," a plaintiff must prove "that breach of the warranty is the direct and proximate cause of *845 the damage." SME Indus. v. Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Assocs, Inc., 2001 UT 54, ¶ 18, 20 , 28 P.3d 669 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2012Although a breach of warranty claim "sounds in strict liability," a plaintiff must prove "that breach of the warranty is the direct and proximate cause of *845 the damage." SME Indus. v. Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Assocs, Inc., 2001 UT 54, ¶ 18, 20 , 28 P.3d 669 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Pearson Enterprisesgreen1 sentence1988We do not distinguish the breach of warranty claim from the breach of contract claim as *‘[a]n *1084 action for breach of warranty may sound in either contract or tort.” Mitchell v. Pearson Enterprises, 697 P.2d 240, 247 (Utah 1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sanns v. Butterfield Ford
green
2 sentences2017Law Inst . 1998) ("When the manufacturer delegates some aspect of manufacture, such as final assembly or inspection, to a subsequent seller, the manufacturer may be subject to liability under rules of vicarious liability for a defect that was introduced into the product after it left the hands of the manufacturer."). 63 Hanover , 758 P.2d at 445 . 64 2004 UT App 203 , 94 P.3d 301 . 65 As discussed above, the Bylsmas also assert a breach of warranty claim, where they assert that R.C. 2017Law Inst . 1998) ("When the manufacturer delegates some aspect of manufacture, such as final assembly or inspection, to a subsequent seller, the manufacturer may be subject to liability under rules of vicarious liability for a defect that was introduced into the product after it left the hands of the manufacturer."). 63 Hanover , 758 P.2d at 445 . 64 2004 UT App 203 , 94 P.3d 301 . 65 As discussed above, the Bylsmas also assert a breach of warranty claim, where they assert that R.C. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Peterson v. Hyundai Motor
green
2 sentences2021The jury 20190979-CA 12 2021 UT App 128 Peterson v. Hyundai Motor awarded the Petersons $752,000: $368,000 for damage to their house, and $384,000 for damage to their personal property. ¶23 Following the verdict, both parties sought additional relief from the court. 2021Where attorneys, during closing argument, fill a gap in the jury 20190979-CA 34 2021 UT App 128 Peterson v. Hyundai Motor instructions, the presence of that argument can be a factor in determining that no prejudice resulted from the erroneous instructions. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Hanover Ltd. v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
green
1 sentence2017Law Inst . 1998) ("When the manufacturer delegates some aspect of manufacture, such as final assembly or inspection, to a subsequent seller, the manufacturer may be subject to liability under rules of vicarious liability for a defect that was introduced into the product after it left the hands of the manufacturer."). 63 Hanover , 758 P.2d at 445 . 64 2004 UT App 203 , 94 P.3d 301 . 65 As discussed above, the Bylsmas also assert a breach of warranty claim, where they assert that R.C. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
American Towers Owners Ass'n v. CCI Mechanical, Inc.
green
1 sentence2001The trial court dismissed both the implied warranty claims based on the Utah Supreme Court's holding in American Towers Owners Ass'n v. CCI Mechanical, Inc., 930 P.2d 1182 (Utah 1996). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.