Bountiful State Bank v. Brimhall

Utah Supreme Court

Bountiful State Bank v. Brimhall

469 P.2d 1022, 24 Utah 2d 254, 1970 Utah LEXIS 643

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedMay 22, 1970

DocketNo. 11807

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 469 P.2d 1022 (Bountiful State Bank v. Brimhall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bountiful State Bank v. Brimhall, 469 P.2d 1022, 24 Utah 2d 254, 1970 Utah LEXIS 643 (Utah 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

TUCKETT, Justice.

The plaintiff banks commenced these proceedings in the court below seeking a review of a decision of W. S. Brimhall, Commissioner of Financial Institutions of the State of Utah, granting an application of Walker Bank & Trust Company for permission to establish a branch bank at Centerville, Davis County. The district court granted a motion of the defendant, Walker Bank & Trust Company, for summary judgment and from that decision the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

[255]*255After Walker Bank & Trust Company-had filed its application for permission to establish a branch bank, the plaintiffs filed written protests with the Commissioner and thereafter a hearing was had in which the plaintiffs and the defendant, Walker Bank & Trust Company, presented evidence in favor of and against the granting of the application. At the conclusion of the hearing the Commissioner found that there had been substantial economic growth in South Davis County in recent years, and that the establishment of the proposed branch bank would not unreasonably interfere with the operation of the existing banks and branches located in that area. The Commissioner further found that the public convenience and advantage would be subserved and promoted by the establishment of the proposed branch at the location indicated in the application. Based upon the foregoing the application of Walker Bank & Trust findings, the Commissioner concluded that Company should he granted.

A transcript of the testimony and other evidence adduced during the hearing before the Commissioner was filed in the district court in connection with these proceedings. At the instance of counsel the trial judge examined the evidence presented at the hearing before the Commissioner and concluded that the decision of the Commissioner was not arbitrary or capricious, and that the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in granting the application of Walker Bank & Trust Company.¹

We have examined the record in this case and have concluded that the record supports the decision of the court below, and the same is affirmed. No costs are awarded.

CROCKETT, C. J., and CALLISTER, HENRIOD, and ELLETT, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TUCKETT, Justice.

The plaintiff banks commenced these proceedings in the court below seeking a review of a decision of W. S. Brimhall, Commissioner of Financial Institutions of the State of Utah, granting an application of Walker Bank & Trust Company for permission to establish a branch bank at Centerville, Davis County. The district court granted a motion of the defendant, Walker Bank & Trust Company, for summary judgment and from that decision the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

[255]*255After Walker Bank & Trust Company-had filed its application for permission to establish a branch bank, the plaintiffs filed written protests with the Commissioner and thereafter a hearing was had in which the plaintiffs and the defendant, Walker Bank & Trust Company, presented evidence in favor of and against the granting of the application. At the conclusion of the hearing the Commissioner found that there had been substantial economic growth in South Davis County in recent years, and that the establishment of the proposed branch bank would not unreasonably interfere with the operation of the existing banks and branches located in that area. The Commissioner further found that the public convenience and advantage would be subserved and promoted by the establishment of the proposed branch at the location indicated in the application. Based upon the foregoing the application of Walker Bank & Trust findings, the Commissioner concluded that Company should he granted.

A transcript of the testimony and other evidence adduced during the hearing before the Commissioner was filed in the district court in connection with these proceedings. At the instance of counsel the trial judge examined the evidence presented at the hearing before the Commissioner and concluded that the decision of the Commissioner was not arbitrary or capricious, and that the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in granting the application of Walker Bank & Trust Company.¹

We have examined the record in this case and have concluded that the record supports the decision of the court below, and the same is affirmed. No costs are awarded.

CROCKETT, C. J., and CALLISTER, HENRIOD, and ELLETT, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 P.2d 1022, 24 Utah 2d 254, 1970 Utah LEXIS 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bountiful-state-bank-v-brimhall-utah-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack