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 1957–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center v. Holmangreen2 sentences2004In particular, the court observed that courts of equity have awarded attorney fees in cases where “a beneficiary sues a trustee for violation of the trust and obtains a recovery for all other beneficiaries whose rights were also violated by the trustee.” Id. at 782-83 (citing In re Estate of McCart, 847 P.2d 184, 187 (Colo.Ct.App.1992); Robinson v. Kirbie, 793 P.2d 315, 319 (Okla.Ct.App.1990); Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research v. Holman, 107 Wash.2d 693 , 732 P.2d 974, 987 (1987); Allard v. Pac. 2004In particular, the court observed that courts of equity have awarded attorney fees in cases where “a beneficiary sues a trustee for violation of the trust and obtains a recovery for all other beneficiaries whose rights were also violated by the trustee.” Id. at 782-83 (citing In re Estate of McCart, 847 P.2d 184, 187 (Colo.Ct.App.1992); Robinson v. Kirbie, 793 P.2d 315, 319 (Okla.Ct.App.1990); Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research v. Holman, 107 Wash.2d 693 , 732 P.2d 974, 987 (1987); Allard v. Pac. | 2 | 2 |
Robinson v. Kirbiegreen2 sentences2004In particular, the court observed that courts of equity have awarded attorney fees in cases where “a beneficiary sues a trustee for violation of the trust and obtains a recovery for all other beneficiaries whose rights were also violated by the trustee.” Id. at 782-83 (citing In re Estate of McCart, 847 P.2d 184, 187 (Colo.Ct.App.1992); Robinson v. Kirbie, 793 P.2d 315, 319 (Okla.Ct.App.1990); Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research v. Holman, 107 Wash.2d 693 , 732 P.2d 974, 987 (1987); Allard v. Pac. 1994In re Estate of McCart, 847 P.2d 184, 187 (Colo.Ct.App. 1992), cert. denied (Feb. 22, 1993) (unpublished opinion); Robinson v. Kirbie, 793 P.2d 315, 319 (Okla.Ct.App.1990); Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research v. Holman, 107 Wash.2d 693 , 732 P.2d 974, 987 (1987); Allard v. Pacific Nat'l Bank, 99 Wash.2d 394 , 663 P.2d 104, 112 (1983). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Estate of McCartgreen2 sentences2004In particular, the court observed that courts of equity have awarded attorney fees in cases where “a beneficiary sues a trustee for violation of the trust and obtains a recovery for all other beneficiaries whose rights were also violated by the trustee.” Id. at 782-83 (citing In re Estate of McCart, 847 P.2d 184, 187 (Colo.Ct.App.1992); Robinson v. Kirbie, 793 P.2d 315, 319 (Okla.Ct.App.1990); Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research v. Holman, 107 Wash.2d 693 , 732 P.2d 974, 987 (1987); Allard v. Pac. 1994In re Estate of McCart, 847 P.2d 184, 187 (Colo.Ct.App. 1992), cert. denied (Feb. 22, 1993) (unpublished opinion); Robinson v. Kirbie, 793 P.2d 315, 319 (Okla.Ct.App.1990); Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research v. Holman, 107 Wash.2d 693 , 732 P.2d 974, 987 (1987); Allard v. Pacific Nat'l Bank, 99 Wash.2d 394 , 663 P.2d 104, 112 (1983). | 2 | 2 |
Allard v. Pacific National Bankgreen2 sentences2004Nat’l Bank, 99 Wash.2d 394 , 663 P.2d 104, 112 (1983)). 2004Nat’l Bank, 99 Wash.2d 394 , 663 P.2d 104, 112 (1983)). | 2 | 2 |
Stewart v. Utah Public Service Commissiongreen2 sentences2004In awarding Linnea these fees, the court relied on Stewart v. Utah Public Service Commission, 885 P.2d 759, 782-83 (Utah 1994), in which this court recognized that courts “have exercised the inherent power to award attorney fees when a beneficiary sues a trustee for violation of the trust and obtains a recovery for all other beneficiaries whose rights were also violated by the trustee.” ¶ 14 The parties appealed and cross-appealed the trial court’s judgment. 2004In particular, the court observed that courts of equity have awarded attorney fees in cases where “a beneficiary sues a trustee for violation of the trust and obtains a recovery for all other beneficiaries whose rights were also violated by the trustee.” Id. at 782-83 (citing In re Estate of McCart, 847 P.2d 184, 187 (Colo.Ct.App.1992); Robinson v. Kirbie, 793 P.2d 315, 319 (Okla.Ct.App.1990); Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research v. Holman, 107 Wash.2d 693 , 732 P.2d 974, 987 (1987); Allard v. Pac. | 1 | 3 |
Collier v. Heinzgreen1 sentence2002Exceptions include: "when a party acts 'in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons,' ” id. (citation omitted); "when nonparty class members [in a class action case] are financially benefitted as a result of the efforts of a few litigants who successfully create a fund that benefits the entire class,” id.; "when a beneficiary sues a trustee for violation of the trust and obtains a recovery for all other beneficiaries whose rights were also violated by the trustee,” id. at 783 ; when a party acts as a " 'private attorney genera! " and vindicates " 'a strong or societally impo | 1 | 1 |
Plumb v. Stategreen2 sentences1994For example, in Plumb v. State, 809 P.2d 734, 739-40 (Utah 1990), attorney fees were awarded to named plaintiffs in a class action against the state for a monetary award that benefitted the entire class. [18] Courts also have exercised *783 the inherent power to award attorney fees when a beneficiary sues a trustee for violation of the trust and obtains a recovery for all other beneficiaries whose rights were also violated by the trustee. 1994For example, in Plumb v. State, 809 P.2d 734, 739-40 (Utah 1990), attorney fees were awarded to named plaintiffs in a class action against the state for a monetary award that benefitted the entire class. 18 Courts also have exer cised the inherent power to award attorney fees when a beneficiary sues a trustee for violation of the trust and obtains a recovery for all other beneficiaries whose rights were also violated by the trustee. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hillam v. Hillam
green
1 sentence2022We intend no disrespect by the apparent informality. 20200545-CA 2 2022 UT App 24 Hillam v. Hancock summary judgment on John’s second cause of action, seeking “a declaration that the Trust is valid and enforceable” and that the stock options were “not subject to division as part of the divorce.” ¶5 Tara opposed the Trustee’s motion. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Hawkins Ex Rel. Hawkins v. Peart
red
2 sentences2006“We review the lower court’s contractual interpretation of [a] release ... for correctness, affording the district court no deference.” Hawkins v. Peart, 2001 UT 94,¶ 4 , 37 P.3d 1062 . ¶ 10 Booth also contends the trial court erred in relying on the Trust’s spendthrift clause to deny her rule 59 motion. 2006“We review the lower court’s contractual interpretation of [a] release ... for correctness, affording the district court no deference.” Hawkins v. Peart, 2001 UT 94,¶ 4 , 37 P.3d 1062 . ¶ 10 Booth also contends the trial court erred in relying on the Trust’s spendthrift clause to deny her rule 59 motion. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Speed v. McCarthy
green
2 sentences1957The court stated: Hendrickson v. California Talc Co., 130 P.2d 806 , 809: “The respondents argue that the trustee principle there applied [In the case of Speed v. McCarthy, 181 U.S. 269 , 21 S.Ct. 613, 616 , 45 L.Ed. 855 ] has no application here since in that case the original entry was valid while here it was invalid. 1957The court stated: Hendrickson v. California Talc Co., 130 P.2d 806 , 809: “The respondents argue that the trustee principle there applied [In the case of Speed v. McCarthy, 181 U.S. 269 , 21 S.Ct. 613, 616 , 45 L.Ed. 855 ] has no application here since in that case the original entry was valid while here it was invalid. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Hendrickson v. California Talc Co.
green
1 sentence1957The court stated: Hendrickson v. California Talc Co., 130 P.2d 806 , 809: “The respondents argue that the trustee principle there applied [In the case of Speed v. McCarthy, 181 U.S. 269 , 21 S.Ct. 613, 616 , 45 L.Ed. 855 ] has no application here since in that case the original entry was valid while here it was invalid. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.