5 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1933–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tolman v. Salt Lake County Attorneygreen2 sentences2009See generally Tolman v. Salt Lake County Attorney, 818 P.2d 23, 26 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (“[A]n abuse of discretion [means] a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment-one that is clearly against the logic and the effect of [the] facts ... or against the reasonable and probable deductions to be drawn from the facts disclosed upon the hearing.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2006An agency abuses its. discretion when it reaches an outcome "that is clearly against the logic and the effect of such facts as are presented in support of the application, or against the reasonable and probable deductions to be drawn from the facts disclosed upon the hearing." Tolman v. Salt Lake County Attorney, 818 P.2d 23, 26 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (quotations and citations omitted). 123 For example, Petitioner alleges that it was an abuse of discretion for his termination to be upheld in spite of the Hearing Officer's statement that some witnesses who testified against Petitioner lacked credib | 2 | 2 |
Burgess v. Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2024Compare Burgess, 2017 UT App 186, ¶ 36 (“An agency abuses its discretion when it reaches an outcome that is clearly against the logic and the effect of such facts as are presented in support of the application, or against the reasonable and probable deductions to be drawn from the facts disclosed upon the hearing.”) (quotation simplified), with Larsen v. Davis County, 2014 UT App 74, ¶ 17 , 324 P.3d 641 (stating that a decision is arbitrary and capricious when it “exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality”) (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 333 P.3d 365 (Utah 2014). 20220449-CA | 1 | 1 |
Larsen v. Davis Countygreen2 sentences2024Compare Burgess, 2017 UT App 186, ¶ 36 (“An agency abuses its discretion when it reaches an outcome that is clearly against the logic and the effect of such facts as are presented in support of the application, or against the reasonable and probable deductions to be drawn from the facts disclosed upon the hearing.”) (quotation simplified), with Larsen v. Davis County, 2014 UT App 74, ¶ 17 , 324 P.3d 641 (stating that a decision is arbitrary and capricious when it “exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality”) (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 333 P.3d 365 (Utah 2014). 20220449-CA 2024Compare Burgess, 2017 UT App 186, ¶ 36 (“An agency abuses its discretion when it reaches an outcome that is clearly against the logic and the effect of such facts as are presented in support of the application, or against the reasonable and probable deductions to be drawn from the facts disclosed upon the hearing.”) (quotation simplified), with Larsen v. Davis County, 2014 UT App 74, ¶ 17 , 324 P.3d 641 (stating that a decision is arbitrary and capricious when it “exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality”) (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 333 P.3d 365 (Utah 2014). 20220449-CA | 1 | 1 |
Cieply v. Weber County Career Servicegreen1 sentence2024Compare Burgess, 2017 UT App 186, ¶ 36 (“An agency abuses its discretion when it reaches an outcome that is clearly against the logic and the effect of such facts as are presented in support of the application, or against the reasonable and probable deductions to be drawn from the facts disclosed upon the hearing.”) (quotation simplified), with Larsen v. Davis County, 2014 UT App 74, ¶ 17 , 324 P.3d 641 (stating that a decision is arbitrary and capricious when it “exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality”) (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 333 P.3d 365 (Utah 2014). 20220449-CA | 1 | 1 |
Lucas v. Murray City Civil Service Commissiongreen1 sentence2017“An agency abuses its -discretion when it reaches an outcome that is clearly against the logic and the effect of such facts as are presented in support of the application, or against the reasonable and probable deductions to be drawn from the facts disclosed upon the hearing.” Sorge v. Office of Att'y Gen., 2006 UT App 2, ¶ 22 , 128 P.3d 566 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Lucas v. Murray City Civil Service Comm’n, 949 P.2d 746, 761 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (“If a penalty is so harsh as to constitute an abuse, rather than an exercise of discretion, it cannot be allowed to | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sorge v. Office of the Attorney General
green
2 sentences2017“An agency abuses its -discretion when it reaches an outcome that is clearly against the logic and the effect of such facts as are presented in support of the application, or against the reasonable and probable deductions to be drawn from the facts disclosed upon the hearing.” Sorge v. Office of Att'y Gen., 2006 UT App 2, ¶ 22 , 128 P.3d 566 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Lucas v. Murray City Civil Service Comm’n, 949 P.2d 746, 761 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (“If a penalty is so harsh as to constitute an abuse, rather than an exercise of discretion, it cannot be allowed to 2017“An agency abuses its -discretion when it reaches an outcome that is clearly against the logic and the effect of such facts as are presented in support of the application, or against the reasonable and probable deductions to be drawn from the facts disclosed upon the hearing.” Sorge v. Office of Att'y Gen., 2006 UT App 2, ¶ 22 , 128 P.3d 566 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Lucas v. Murray City Civil Service Comm’n, 949 P.2d 746, 761 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (“If a penalty is so harsh as to constitute an abuse, rather than an exercise of discretion, it cannot be allowed to | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Jones v. Flowers
green
2 sentences2009Cf. Jones, 547 U.S. at 234 , 126 S.Ct. 1708 (stating that “the State should have taken additional reasonable steps,” if available, when the government had knowledge of failed notice). ¶ 11 Because the hearing proceeded in violation of Becker’s due process rights, the Board’s decision affirming Becker’s termination is set aside. 2009Cf. Jones, 547 U.S. at 234 , 126 S.Ct. 1708 (stating that “the State should have taken additional reasonable steps,” if available, when the government had knowledge of failed notice). ¶ 11 Because the hearing proceeded in violation of Becker’s due process rights, the Board’s decision affirming Becker’s termination is set aside. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Webber v. Webber
neutral
2 sentences1933App.) 16 P. (2d) 591 , “is meant a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment — one that is clearly against the logic and effect of such facts as are presented in support of the application, or against the reasonable and probable deductions to be drawn from the facts disclosed upon the hearing.” To that effect is Webber v. Webber, 157 Minn. 422 , 196 N. W. 646 . 1933App.) 16 P. (2d) 591 , “is meant a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment — one that is clearly against the logic and effect of such facts as are presented in support of the application, or against the reasonable and probable deductions to be drawn from the facts disclosed upon the hearing.” To that effect is Webber v. Webber, 157 Minn. 422 , 196 N. W. 646 . | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Quinn v. State
neutral
1 sentence1933App.) 16 P. (2d) 591 , “is meant a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment — one that is clearly against the logic and effect of such facts as are presented in support of the application, or against the reasonable and probable deductions to be drawn from the facts disclosed upon the hearing.” To that effect is Webber v. Webber, 157 Minn. 422 , 196 N. W. 646 . | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.