Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Zuelzke Tool & Engineering Co., Inc. v. Anderson Die Castings, Inc.green2 sentences2010See Zuelzke, 925 F.2d at 280 . [ 34 We hold that in every instance, communications and conduct between parties will only enjoy the status of an appearance under rule 5 if marked by a formal filing with the tribunal in which the relevant action is pending. 135 Having determined that Utah follows the minority approach to defining "appear" under rule 5(a)(2)(B), we now turn to River Crossings' claim that adhering to this minority approach runs afoul of our Utah Rules of Professionalism and Civility. 2010See Zuelzke, 925 F.2d at 230 . ¶ 34 We hold that in every instance, communications and conduct between parties will only enjoy the status of an appearance under rule 5 if marked by a formal filing with the *1042 tribunal in which the relevant action is pending. ¶ 35 Having determined that Utah follows the minority approach to defining "appear" under rule 5(a)(2)(B), we now turn to River Crossings' claim that adhering to this minority approach runs afoul of our Utah Rules of Professionalism and Civility. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Toddgreen2 sentences2010See id. ("[The] defendant, the court, the state, and others [should] be able to determine [the meaning of a rule}"). 2010See id. ("[The] defendant, the court, the state, and others [should] be able to determine [the meaning of a rule]"). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Waddoupsgreen2 sentences1987The use of the word "must" is clearly mandatory. [3] Also, the Utah Supreme Court, in Taylor v. Waddoups, 121 Utah 279 , 241 P.2d 157, 159 (1952), although primarily addressing the issue of relinquishment, makes no allowance for a selective appearance by the interested parties: "The adoptive parents, the child adopted, and the natural parents or persons whose consent is necessary, must appear before the district court where the consent must be signed, and the agreement executed that the child shall be treated as the lawful child of the adopted parents." We conclude that the appearance requirem 1987The use of the word "must" is clearly mandatory. [3] Also, the Utah Supreme Court, in Taylor v. Waddoups, 121 Utah 279 , 241 P.2d 157, 159 (1952), although primarily addressing the issue of relinquishment, makes no allowance for a selective appearance by the interested parties: "The adoptive parents, the child adopted, and the natural parents or persons whose consent is necessary, must appear before the district court where the consent must be signed, and the agreement executed that the child shall be treated as the lawful child of the adopted parents." We conclude that the appearance requirem | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tangren Family Trust v. Tangren
green
1 sentence2016Id. ¶36 In sum, if an appearance under rule 5 included the sort of appearance that Tangren made at the preliminary injunction proceeding—as I think it should—default judgment could not have been entered against him until he was served with a motion for entry of default and related papers. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Lund v. Brown
green
2 sentences2010Although we have not previously been presented with the exact question 'before us, we addressed the concept of an appearance under rule 5 in Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Jensen, 656 P.2d 1009 (Utah 1982), and again in Lund v. Brown, 2000 UT 75 , 11 P.3d 277 . { 21 In Central Bank, the plaintiff, Central Bank & Trust Company, filed a complaint against defendants seeking a monetary judgment for an unpaid credit card balance. 656 P.2d at 1010 . 2010Although we have not previously been presented with the exact question 'before us, we addressed the concept of an appearance under rule 5 in Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Jensen, 656 P.2d 1009 (Utah 1982), and again in Lund v. Brown, 2000 UT 75 , 11 P.3d 277 . { 21 In Central Bank, the plaintiff, Central Bank & Trust Company, filed a complaint against defendants seeking a monetary judgment for an unpaid credit card balance. 656 P.2d at 1010 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Jensen
green
2 sentences2010Although we have not previously been presented with the exact question 'before us, we addressed the concept of an appearance under rule 5 in Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Jensen, 656 P.2d 1009 (Utah 1982), and again in Lund v. Brown, 2000 UT 75 , 11 P.3d 277 . { 21 In Central Bank, the plaintiff, Central Bank & Trust Company, filed a complaint against defendants seeking a monetary judgment for an unpaid credit card balance. 656 P.2d at 1010 . 2010Although we have not previously been presented with the exact question 'before us, we addressed the concept of an appearance under rule 5 in Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Jensen, 656 P.2d 1009 (Utah 1982), and again in Lund v. Brown, 2000 UT 75 , 11 P.3d 277 . { 21 In Central Bank, the plaintiff, Central Bank & Trust Company, filed a complaint against defendants seeking a monetary judgment for an unpaid credit card balance. 656 P.2d at 1010 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State of New York and Erin D. Crotty v. Kevan M. Green and Polymer Applications, Inc., Docket No. 04-4070-Cv
green
1 sentence2008Because River Crossings’ legal counsel, like the defendants’ legal counsel in Central Bank & Trust, never “ma[d]e some presentation or submission to the district court,” Green, 420 F.3d at 105 , we hold that River Crossings never made an appearance pursuant to rule 5. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Leatherby Insurance Co. v. Merit Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1994IHCH further argues that (1) even those evident partiality cases which Dr. DeVore claims have adopted an appearance standard are ultimately inconclusive on the point; and (2) in any event, the vast majority of evident partiality cases, such as Morelite Construction Corp. v. New York City District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds, 748 F.2d 79 (2d Cir.1984), and Merit Insurance Co. v. Leatherby Insurance Co., 714 F.2d 673 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1009 , 104 S.Ct. 529 , 78 L.Ed.2d 711 (1983), have rejected an appearance standard in favor of a more definite showing of bias. 1994IHCH further argues that (1) even those evident partiality cases which Dr. DeVore claims have adopted an appearance standard are ultimately inconclusive on the point; and (2) in any event, the vast majority of evident partiality cases, such as Morelite Construction Corp. v. New York City District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds, 748 F.2d 79 (2d Cir.1984), and Merit Insurance Co. v. Leatherby Insurance Co., 714 F.2d 673 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1009 , 104 S.Ct. 529 , 78 L.Ed.2d 711 (1983), have rejected an appearance standard in favor of a more definite showing of bias. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Merit Insurance Company v. Leatherby Insurance Company A/K/A Western Employers Insurance Company
green
1 sentence1994IHCH further argues that (1) even those evident partiality cases which Dr. DeVore claims have adopted an appearance standard are ultimately inconclusive on the point; and (2) in any event, the vast majority of evident partiality cases, such as Morelite Construction Corp. v. New York City District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds, 748 F.2d 79 (2d Cir.1984), and Merit Insurance Co. v. Leatherby Insurance Co., 714 F.2d 673 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1009 , 104 S.Ct. 529 , 78 L.Ed.2d 711 (1983), have rejected an appearance standard in favor of a more definite showing of bias. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Morelite Construction Corp. v. New York City District Council Carpenters Benefit Funds
green
1 sentence1994IHCH further argues that (1) even those evident partiality cases which Dr. DeVore claims have adopted an appearance standard are ultimately inconclusive on the point; and (2) in any event, the vast majority of evident partiality cases, such as Morelite Construction Corp. v. New York City District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds, 748 F.2d 79 (2d Cir.1984), and Merit Insurance Co. v. Leatherby Insurance Co., 714 F.2d 673 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1009 , 104 S.Ct. 529 , 78 L.Ed.2d 711 (1983), have rejected an appearance standard in favor of a more definite showing of bias. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.