• BLOG

Finlayson v. State, 6 F.4th 1235 (10th Cir. July 28, 2021)

Joining sister circuits, the Tenth Circuit held that dismissal for lack of prosecution under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) of federal claims in state court qualified as a default under an independent and adequate state procedural rule, thereby barring…

State v. Jok, 2021 UT 35 (July 22, 2021)

The court affirmed the court of appeals’ determination that the victim’s testimony was not inherently improbable, and held that the issue of inherent improbability is a challenge to the sufficiency  of evidence which is automatically preserved on appeal in cases…

Gillman v. Gillman, 2021 UT 33 (July 22, 2021)

On interlocutory appeal from the district court’s order setting aside a default certificate under Utah R. Civ. 55(c), the supreme court rejected the argument that a showing of “good cause” under Rule 55(c) demands some reason for the default beyond…

Thurston v. Block United LLC, 2021 UT App 80 (July 22, 2021)

The court affirmed the district court’s ruling enforcing a settlement agreement and dismissing the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The plaintiff had alleged that the settlement agreement was void due to fraudulent misrepresentation, but the court held that the plaintiff waived the…

Words About Ethics Image

Advocating “Truth” at Trial

By: Keith A. Call

Zealously advocating truth at trial is a very nuanced endeavor. In general, lawyers cannot knowingly or recklessly make false statements of fact at trial, they may not knowingly present false evidence, and they must use judgment if they reasonably believe the evidence is false.

Wyatt v. State, 2021 UT 32 (July 15, 2021)

Rule 17(k) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure does not automatically bar testimonial exhibits from going back with the jury, but instead allows the trial court to exercise its broad discretion on whether to allow the jury to have…

Ramon v. Nebo Sch. Dist., 2021 UT 30 (July 15, 2021)

The district court dismissed a claim for negligent supervision as superfluous, where the defendant school district had admitted it was vicariously liable for the actions of the bus driver who was involved in an accident. The supreme court reversed, declining…