Court Opinion

ID: 9552531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:12:41.733573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:57.988897
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Chief Justice,
concurring in the result:
¶25 I concur in the result. I write to point out that in his complaint, Rushton sought both money damages and an order that the County reconvey to him the property described in the quitclaim deed in excess of the .53 acres that he claims he intended to convey and that the County intended to buy. To the extent that his suit constituted an equitable claim against the County, it would not be subject to the Immunity Act. Bennett v. Bow Valley Dev. Corp., 797 P.2d 419, 422 (Utah 1990). However, Rushton did not argue that he had an equitable claim either in the district court or in his brief on appeal. He apparently first made that assertion in his oral argument before this court. That came too late since the County had no opportunity to respond.
¶ 26 Justice STEWART dissents.