1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.2d
  4. 919 P.2d
  5. 919 P.2d 561 (1996)
 

GOHLER v. WOOD

No. 940306.

919 P.2d 561 (1996)

Gerhard W. GOHLER, IRA; John C. Sutherland; Barbara Catherwood; David W.J. Paden; Joseph M. Gaffney; Stevens D. Frink; and Jeff Nouwens, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellants, and Cross-Appellees, v. Robert L. WOOD; Raymond L. Hixson; Robert N. Pratt; L. Wynn Johnson; John T. Dunlop; Gerald C. Monson; Stephen D. Nadauld; Portland General Corporation; Portland General Holdings, Inc.; Richard G. Reiten; Richard W. Dyer; C.D. Hobbs; Peter J. Brix; Ken L. Harrison; Calvert Knudson; Deloitte & Touche; Kidder, Peabody & Co.; Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Inc., and Hanifen, Imhoff Inc., Defendants, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants.

Supreme Court of Utah.

July 5, 1996.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David K. Isom, Scott A. Call, Thomas R. Karrenberg, Salt Lake City, Edward F. Haber, Boston, Mass., Robert C. Schubert, San Francisco, Cal., Blake M. Harper, Theodore J. Pintar, San Diego, Cal., Justine Fischer, Portland, Or., and Steve W. Berman, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs.

Richard D. Burbidge, Stephen B. Mitchell, Salt Lake City, for defendants Wood, Hixson, Johnson, and Monson.

Douglas J. Parry, Salt Lake City, for defendant Dunlop.

William B. Bohling, Randon W. Wilson, Jeffrey N. Walker, Salt Lake City, for defendant Nadauld Michael M. Later, Clark Waddoups, Salt Lake City, and Bruce A. Rubin, Portland, Or., for defendants Portland General.

Daniel L. Berman, Samuel O. Gaufin, Salt Lake City, for defendants Reiten, Dyer, Brix, Hobbs, Harrison, and Knudson.

Gary F. Bendinger, Richard W. Casey, Jeffery S. Williams, Catherine Agnoli, Stephen R. Waldron, Salt Lake City, and Barbara A. Mentz, New York City, for defendant Deloitte & Touche.

Robert A. Peterson, Alan L. Sullivan, Kathryn A. Snedaker, Salt Lake City, for Kidder Peabody, Piper Jaffray, and Hanifen, Imhoff.

ZIMMERMAN, Chief Justice:

This case is before the court on certification from the United States District Court for the District of Utah pursuant to rule 41 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. The district court's certification order presents the following two issues of state law for our determination: (i) whether reliance upon an alleged untrue statement or misleading omission is an essential element of a private cause of action under sections 61-1-1(2) and...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases