Case Summaries
| Jurisdiction | Utah,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 1 No. 2 Pg. 23 |
| Pages | 23 |
| Publication year | 1988 |
William D. Holyoak and Clark R. Nielsen, J.
MARSHALING OF PARTNERSHIP ASSETS
A partner of a general partnership complained to the Public Service Commission about Mountain Bell Telephone's attempt to collect from him personally a partnership debt before first seeking satisfaction of the debt from the partnership's assets. The Utah Supreme Court agreed with the partner's argument, stating:
The applicable general law is relatively clear. Under the Utah Uniform Partnership Act, partners are jointly, rather than jointly and severally, liable for all debts and obligations of the partnership not arising from tort or breach of trust. Utah Code Ann. Sect. 48-1-10, -11, -12 (1982) [other citations omitted]. If a debt is contractual in origin, common law requires that the partnership's assets be resorted to and exhausted before partnership creditors can reach the partners' individual assets [citations omitted]. The Utah courts have never determined whether this common law exhaustion-of-partnership-assets requirement survives under the Utah Uniform Partnership Act [citation omitted]. However, it appears to be generally accepted that the uniform act does not disturb this rule and may, in fact, embrace it.
(McCune & McCune v. Mountain Bell Telephone, 87 Utah Adv. Rep.9 (July 19, 1988).
VOIR DIRE CONCERNING RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION WHEN CHURCH IS PARTY TO LITIGATION
The LDS Church was a defendant in a personal injury action that resulted from a collision between the plaintiff, who was riding his motorcycle, and a cow that had escaped from an LDS Church welfare farm.
Plaintiff's attorney requested that the following questions be asked of prospective jurors at the time of voir dire:
Are any of you members of the LDS Church? Would that, in any way, affect your ability to evaluate the evidence in this case and render a fair decision for the plaintiff?
Did any of you hold a position in the LDS Church such as Bishop or presiding officer or counselor?
Which stake was that in? Where is that located?
Would that position affect you in making a fair decision in this case?
If the evidence were favorable to the plaintiff in this case, would you have a problem in awarding a judgment against the LDS Church?
The trial court refused to ask the proposed questions and instead asked a general question as to whether any prospective juror would have difficulty being an impartial juror because of feelings toward the LDS Church.
The Utah Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court's question to the jurors was sufficient to determine whether any prospective jurors should be disqualified for cause. The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that the trial court improperly limited plaintiff's ability to ask questions so that he could make an informed exercise of his peremptory challenges. The Court stated:
Whenever a religious organization is a party to the litigation, voir dire regarding the jury panel's religious affiliations is proper [citations omitted].
Substantial impairment of the right to informed exercise of peremptory challenges is reversible error [citations omitted]. In the instant case, the trial court abused its discretion in denying voir dire regarding...
To continue reading
Request your trial