Lee v. Langley

6 Citing cases

  1. Lee v. Thorpe

    2006 UT 66 (Utah 2006)   Cited 9 times
    Holding "that when a conflict arises between parties to a contract regarding the subject matter of that contract, the contractual relationship controls, and parties are not permitted to assert actions in tort in an attempt to circumvent the bargain they agreed on."

    The court of appeals analyzed Langley's actions under Utah's Bail Bond Recovery Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 53-11-101 to -124 (2002), and concluded that Langley's conduct, if prosecuted, would constitute a class A misdemeanor. Lee v. Langley, 2005 UT App 339, ¶¶ 12-15, 121 P.3d 33. The court maintained, however, that Langley's susceptibility to prosecution under the Act did not translate into civil liability.

  2. Myrah v. Campbell

    2007 UT App. 168 (Utah Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 4 times

    "`Trial courts are afforded broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence; thus, we will not disturb a trial court's ruling whether to admit or exclude evidence absent an abuse of discretion.'" Lee v. Langley, 2005 UT App 339, ¶ 9, 121 P.3d 33 (quoting Vigil v. Division of Child Family Servs., 2005 UT App 43, ¶ 8, 107 P.3d 716), aff'd sub nom. Lee v. Thorpe, 2006 UT 66, 147 P.3d 443. ¶ 11 Landlord also argues that the trial court did not have the authority to grant equitable relief to Tenants offsetting the last month's rent. "When a district court fashions an equitable remedy, we review it to determine whether the district court abused its discretion."

  3. Goodridge v. Diamond Ranch Acad.

    4:22-cv-00102-DN-PK (D. Utah May. 17, 2024)

    The Utah Supreme Court has described “false imprisonment” as a “fundamental tort” of “wrongful imposition of control over [a person's] freedom of movement.”Lee v. Langley, 121 P.3d 33, 38, (Utah App. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Tiede v. State, 915 P.2d 500, 503 n.4 (Utah 1996)). Mildon v. Bybee, 375 P.2d 458, 459 (Utah 1962)

  4. Martinez-Trumm v. Citywide Home Loans

    Case No. 2:18CV103DAK (D. Utah Jun. 19, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Consent is a complete defense to the intentional tort of conversion: "No intentional tort will lie where the plaintiff consents to otherwise tortious activity." Lee v. Langley, 212 P.3d 33, 38 n.3 (Utah Ct. App. 2005).

  5. Morales v. UBS Bank USA

    Case No. 2:14-cv-888-JNP-BCW (D. Utah Jul. 8, 2016)   Cited 3 times

    Consent is a complete defense to the intentional tort of conversion: "[n]o intentional tort will lie where the plaintiff consents to otherwise tortious activity." Lee v. Langley, 121 P.3d 33, 38 n.3 (Utah Ct. App. 2005); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 252 (1965) ("One who would otherwise be liable to another for trespass to a chattel or for conversion is not liable to the extent that the other has effectively consented to the interference with his rights."). Here, Plaintiffs consented to UBS Bank's foreclosure of the CEF shares in paragraph D of the Credit Line Agreement.

  6. Lee v. Langley

    125 P.3d 102 (Utah 2005)

    November 16, 2005. Appeal from 121 P.3d 33. Petition for certiorari granted.