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 1 courts 1990–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Amadorgreen2 sentences2000Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 22.30 (4th rev. ed.1985))); see also State v. Amador, 804 P.2d 1233, 1234 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (stating that "[elvery amendment not expressly characterized as a clarification carries the rebuttable presumption that it is intended to change existing legal rights and liabilities"). 2000Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 22.30 (4th rev. ed.1985))); see also State v. Amador, 804 P.2d 1233, 1234 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (stating that "[e]very amendment not expressly characterized as a clarification carries the rebuttable presumption that it is intended to change existing legal rights and liabilities"). | 3 | 3 |
Foil v. Ballingergreen1 sentence2001See Foil v. Ballinger, 601 P.2d 144, 151 (Utah 1979). 115 Appellant does not appear to argue that the amendment to section 80-8-10.6(2) is procedural; rather, she argues the amendment clarifies how section 30-3-10.6(2) should have been understood. " '[Elvery amendment not expressly characterized as a clarification carries the rebuttable presumption that it is intended to change ... existing legal rights and labilities'" Abel v. Industrial Comm'n, 860 P.2d 367, 369 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Abel v. Industrial Com'n of Utahgreen1 sentence2001See Foil v. Ballinger, 601 P.2d 144, 151 (Utah 1979). 115 Appellant does not appear to argue that the amendment to section 80-8-10.6(2) is procedural; rather, she argues the amendment clarifies how section 30-3-10.6(2) should have been understood. " '[Elvery amendment not expressly characterized as a clarification carries the rebuttable presumption that it is intended to change ... existing legal rights and labilities'" Abel v. Industrial Comm'n, 860 P.2d 367, 369 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Madsen v. Borthick
green
2 sentences1992"Every amendment not expressly characterized as a clarification carries the rebuttable presumption that it is intended to change existing legal rights and liabilities.” State v. Amador, 804 P.2d 1233, 1234 (Utah App.1991) (citing Madsen v. Borthick, 769 P.2d 245 , 252 n. 11 (Utah 1988)). 1992"Every amendment not expressly characterized as a clarification carries the rebuttable presumption that it is intended to change existing legal rights and liabilities." State v. Amador, 804 P.2d 1233, 1234 (Utah App.1991) (citing Madsen v. Borthick, 769 P.2d 245 , 252 n. 11 (Utah 1988)). | 2 | 1990–1992 |
Luckau v. Board of Review of the Industrial Commission
green
1 sentence1993However, “[e]very amendment not expressly characterized as a clarification carries the rebuttable presumption that it is intended to change the existing legal rights and liabilities.” Luckau v. Industrial Comm’n, 840 P.2d 811 , 816 n. 2 (Utah App.1992) (quoting State v. Amador, 804 P.2d 1233, 1234 (Utah App.1990)), ce rt. denied, 853 P.2d 897 (Utah 1993). | 1 | 1993–1993 |