From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Bullock v. State, Department of Transportation
Utah Court of Appeals
966 P.2d 1215 (1998)
Facts
Richard Bullock (plaintiff) and several other people (defendants) were copartners in a partnership that owned land in Utah. In October of 1991, Bullock’s partners negotiated a contract between the partnership and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) (defendant) for the sale of the land. Bullock learned of the contract after the negotiations and opposed the sale because he thought the land price was too low. In early 1992, Bullock sent UDOT a letter indicating that he was familiar with the sale terms and stating that he hoped to receive further information from UDOT so that a sale could be effectuated. In March of 1992, Bullock’s partners signed a deed conveying the land to UDOT in accordance with the 1991 contract. In September of 1992, the partners sent Bullock a check for $67,198.43, Bullock’s share of the sale proceeds, along with a note that listed the total proceeds and explained how the proceeds had been distributed. Bullock endorsed and negotiated the check. Six months later, Bullock served a notice of suit against the state. In March of 1996, Bullock sued UDOT and his partners to challenge the sale. The trial court dismissed Bullock’s claims, concluding, among other things, that Bullock had ratified the sale contract. Bullock appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Billings, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
