(Download) "John C. Sittner v. Big Horn Tar Sands" by Supreme Court Of Utah * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: John C. Sittner v. Big Horn Tar Sands
- Author : Supreme Court Of Utah
- Release Date : January 19, 1984
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
ZIMMERMAN, Justice: This action upon a promissory note was originally filed against three defendants, two corporations and OTS Research, a Utah general partnership. After the trial court entered a stipulated judgment against those defendants on the $30,000 note, plaintiff amended his complaint and sought judgment against the nine general partners of OTS alleging that the general partners were individually liable for the judgment against OTS. Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to hold all nine partners liable under the prior judgment against OTS. In March of 1983, Judge Timothy R. Hanson denied the motion, holding that material issues of fact remained to be resolved. Shortly thereafter, the matter was assigned to Judge Peter F. Leary for pretrial and trial. In August of 1983, plaintiff again filed a motion, this time seeking summary judgment against five of the individual partners of OTS under the earlier judgment against the partnership. Judge Leary granted it. These five defendants, Brimhall, Berney, Gildea, Berney, and Welker, contend before this Court that in granting summary judgment against them, the trial Judge erred because he overruled a decision by a coequal. We agree and reverse. One branch of what is generally termed the doctrine of law of the case has evolved to avoid the delays and difficulties that arise when one Judge is presented with an issue identical to one which has already been passed upon by a coordinate Judge in the same case. Richardson v. Grand Central Corp., Utah, 572 P.2d 395, 397 (1977); see 5 Am. Jur. 2d Appeal and Error § 744 (1962). rdinarily one Judge of the same court cannot properly overrule the decision of another Judge of that court. Richardson v. Grand Central Corp., 572 P.2d at 397. There are several exceptions to this rule. However, only one could possibly be applicable here: The second Judge may reverse the first Judge's ruling if the issues decided by the first Judge are presented to the second Judge in a different light, as where a summary judgment initially denied is subsequently granted after additional evidence is adduced. Richardson v. Grand Central Corp., 572 P.2d at 397; Hammer v. Gibbons and Reed Co., 29 Utah 2d 415, 510 P.2d 1104 (1973); See Board of Education of Granite School District v. Salt Lake County, Utah, 659 P.2d 1030, 1033 (1983). The issue here is whether the motion before Judge Leary presented the questions involved in the summary judgment motion in a different light. Examination of the record shows that it did not.
 "John C. Sittner v. Big Horn Tar Sands" by Supreme Court Of Utah * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}