In Desert Livestock Co. v. Utah Power & Light Co., 541 P.2d 1111 (Utah 1975), a district court took a defendant's motion for dismissal under advisement and allowed the defendant to introduce its evidence after the close of the plaintiffs' case. Id. at 1113. Upon conclusion of the defendant's evidence, the district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. Id. In upholding the district court's decision, the Court stated as follows: "Having done all this in granting defendant's motion to dismiss and subsequently entering findings and conclusions, particularly in withholding action on the motion to dismiss, we believe the judge was not only justified procedurally in granting the motion under rule 41(b), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, but exercised a discretion reserved to himself irrespective of such rule. All of which leads us to conclude that plaintiffs' Points I and II on appeal, having to do with plaintiffs' urgence that the trial court was required to look solely to plaintiffs' evidence in acting on the motion, is without merit." Id.