Ray Lindsay v. Lee C. Atkin and Peter A. Book Reviews

Ray Lindsay v. Lee C. Atkin and Peter A. by Supreme Court Of Utah Book Summary

DURHAM, Justice: The question on this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion to correct its earlier order nunc pro tunc. The order dismissed Parrish Oil Tools, Inc. (Parrish Oil Tools), defendant, from the lawsuit with prejudice, and defendant sought a change to reflect a dismissal without prejudice. We affirm the trial court's order. Plaintiff Lindsay sued appellants Atkin and Nyberg in May 1978 in Duchesne County District Court on a promissory note executed by appellants naming Southern Utah Hay Company (Southern Utah Hay) as promisor and Lindsay as promisee. Atkin and Nyberg defended on the ground that a second note had been substituted for the first, relieving them of liability to Lindsay. In March 1980, Parrish Oil Tools and others were brought into the suit as defendants on Lindsay's motion to include all parties with an interest in the action. Subsequently, the parties determined that Parrish Oil Tools was a limited partner in Southern Utah Hay. At a pretrial conference in July 1980, Lindsay's counsel stated that, as a limited partner, Parrish Oil Tools was not a proper party and should be out if [their counsel] would submit his order. Counsel for Parrish Oil Tools submitted an order to the trial court that was signed August 6, 1980, and read as follows:

👋 Do you love Ray Lindsay v. Lee C. Atkin and Peter A. books? Please share your friends!

Ray Lindsay v. Lee C. Atkin and Peter A. (Supreme Court Of Utah) Book Reviews 2024

Supreme Court Of Utah - Ray Lindsay v. Lee C. Atkin and Peter A. Discussions & Comments

Have you read this book yet? What do you think about Ray Lindsay v. Lee C. Atkin and Peter A. by Supreme Court Of Utah book? Ask the bookpedia.co community a question about Ray Lindsay v. Lee C. Atkin and Peter A.!