Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates

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.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Larsen v. Wright
(Jan 6, 2012)