APPELLATE HIGHLIGHTS

  • SEE ALL
  • CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

Pinney v. Carrera, 2020 UT 43 (July 6, 2020)

Jul 6, 2020

This appeal arose from the district court’s denial of post-trial motions in an automobile accident case where the jury awarded $300,000 in general damages to the plaintiff, but no special damages.  The defendant argued that the general damage award was…

Young v. Hagel, 2020 UT App 100 (June 25, 2020)

Jun 25, 2020

In this custody case, the court of appeals held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion under Rule 60(b)(1) to set aside a default order that had been entered because the mother failed to appear within…

State v. Bell, 2020 UT 38 (June 23, 2020)

Jun 23, 2020

The court affirmed the court of appeals’ ruling that a criminal defendant was not entitled to a limited review of the victim’s privileged mental health therapy records, because he failed to establish that the victim had a condition that was…

In Interest of B.T.B., 2020 UT 36 (June 22, 2020)

Jun 22, 2020

In this termination of parental rights case, the supreme court held that the court of appeals properly disavowed prior case law that suggested that termination almost automatically followed a determination that the statutory grounds had been met.  The court also…

United States v. Hamett, 961 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. June 15, 2020)

Jun 15, 2020

In the middle of his trial on kidnapping and weapons charges, the defendant elected to waive his right to counsel.  Appealing his subsequent conviction, the defendant argued that the waiver was invalid because it was not made knowingly and intelligently….

Mitchell v. Roberts, 2020 UT 34 (June 11, 2020)

Jun 11, 2020

Utah Code § 78B-2308(7) provides that, even if claims for sexual abuse of minors were “time barred as of July 1, 2016,” the claims were nonetheless revived if they were “brought within 35 years of the victim’s 18th birthday, or within…

Griffin v. Snow Christensen & Martineau, 2020 UT 33 (June 10, 2020)

Jun 10, 2020

The court held the plaintiff’s post-trial motions were timely because the district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice was not a separate Rule 58(a) judgment, and therefore did not trigger the 28-day deadline for plaintiff…