Personal Injury & Accidents

Aggressive collection and preservation of evidence is critical to support a successful cause of action. Leading experts are regularly retained to fully develop each case.

“It is the duty of the driver of a motor vehicle to see or to know, from having seen, that the highway ahead of him is clear and safe for him to travel at the speed which he is maintaining, and it is negligence for him to fail to do so.” See Henderson v. Meyer, 533 P.2d 290, 291 (Utah 1975).

Contracts & Real Estate

Contract dispute presented to 12-member Federal jury in 2016:

“IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED That judgment is entered in the amount of $700,000.00.” See Judgment, Case No. 2:13-cv-1090.

Estates & Trusts

Utah law provides a variety of useful asset protection provisions that should be carefully considered during the estate planning process.
See Utah Code §25-6-14.

Agriculture & Water Rights

Preservation and the defense of existing water rights will become increasingly difficult as populations and demand on resources increase.

In Utah and other arid western states, “a drop of water is a drop of gold.”
See Delta Canal Co. v. Frank Vincent Family Ranch, LC, 2013 UT 69, ¶ 19.

Regulatory Disputes

Cattle producers are welcome to call this law office for assitance processing their beef promotion refund claims.

“A person who objects to payment of the assessed fee may file a claim with the department within 60 days after the fee is collected.” U.C.A. § 4-21-4. Refund of fees allowed–Claim for refund to be filed with department–Payment of refunds.

Property Line Disputes

Boundary by acquiescence has four elements: “(i) occupation up to a visible line marked by monuments, fences, or buildings, (ii) mutual acquiescence in the line as a boundary, (iii) for a long period of time, (iv) by adjoining land owners.” See Essential Botanical Farms, LC v. Kay, 2011 UT 71, ¶ 25, 270 P.3d 430, 438.

Dog Bite Litigation

“Every person owning or keeping a dog is liable in damages for injury committed by the dog…”
See Utah Code Ann. § 18-1-1.

See Phung v. Rodriquez, Ut. Third Dist. Case No. 040927475; dog bite jury award plus costs and fees for failure to admit liability.


42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.

The purpose of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., is to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). Title II of the ADA covers discrimination in the provision of public services, including public transportation. §§ 12141, et seq. “Improving transportation services for disabled persons is a key component of the ADA.” Liberty Resources, Inc. v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 155 F.Supp.2d 242, 253 (E.D.Pa.2001). “[A]ccess to transportation is the key to opening up education, employment, recreation … the other provisions of the [ADA] are meaningless unless we put together an accessible public transportation system in this country.” Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989: Hearing on S. 988 Before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 101st Cong. 169 (1989) (statement of Tim Cook, Executive Director, National Disability Action Center).

See Walter v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 434 F. Supp. 2d 346, 350-51 (E.D. Pa. 2006)(f.n. omitted).

“Mr. Fuller is nothing if not tenacious.”

Opposing Counsel, Still Standing Stable v. Aspenwood, Oct 21, 2015 (“persistent in maintaining, adhering to, or seeking something valued or desired <a tenacious advocate of civial rights> <tenacious negotiators> “)

© 2017 Fuller Law Office, LC. All rights reserved. This law office does not offer tax advice nor guarantees of any kind.