From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Larsen v. Wright

Court of Appeals of Utah.
Jan 6, 2012
268 P.3d 890 (Utah Ct. App. 2012)

Opinion

No. 20110770–CA.

2012-01-6

James H. LARSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Randall WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellee.

James H. Larsen, Provo, Appellant Pro Se. Peter C. Schofield, Orem, for Appellee.


James H. Larsen, Provo, Appellant Pro Se. Peter C. Schofield, Orem, for Appellee.

Before Judges McHUGH, THORNE, and CHRISTIANSEN.

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

¶ 1 James H. Larsen appeals the trial court's order dismissing his complaint. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for review. Larsen failed to respond to the motion. As a result of his failure to respond and the lack of a viable legal issue identified in his docketing statement, he has failed to identify a substantial question for review warranting further consideration by this court. See Utah R.App. P. 10. Absent a substantial issue for review, this court may summarily affirm a district court's order.

¶ 2 Affirmed.


Summaries of

Larsen v. Wright

Court of Appeals of Utah.
Jan 6, 2012
268 P.3d 890 (Utah Ct. App. 2012)
Case details for

Larsen v. Wright

Case Details

Full title:James H. LARSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Randall WRIGHT, Defendant and…

Court:Court of Appeals of Utah.

Date published: Jan 6, 2012

Citations

268 P.3d 890 (Utah Ct. App. 2012)
699 Utah Adv. Rep. 56
2012 UT App. 9

Citing Cases

Reynolds v. Woodall

Although Reynolds also challenges the dismissal of U.S. Bank and the summary judgment entered in favor of the…