concluding that two issues argued by appellants in their brief but not raised in their petition for review were “beyond the scope of th[e] appeal and [would] not be considered”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that two issues argued by appellants in their brief but not raised in their petition for review were “beyond the scope of th[e] appeal and [would] not be considered”
- reversing summary judgment dismissing fraud claim because “the only way for the district court to have concluded that the representations were not knowingly false was to have weighed the evidence and assessed the credibility of the parties”
- concluding that issues briefed by parties but not raised in the petition for review are beyond the scope of the appeal and declining to address them
- stating that “[w]eighing the evidence and assessing credibility on summary judgment is error”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HANSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Paul H. Anderson.