inflexible rule in Utah

2006Federal courts have reasoned that the better view is that the discretion of the trial judge should not be rigidly bound by an inflexible rule but rather that it should be exercised on a case-by-case basis giving consideration to all pertinent aspects including the lapse of time which reasonably and properly bear upon the likelihood of the statement being an accurate recordation of the event to which the memory " related. 6 *888 Senak, 527 F.2d at 141 .

2005Id. at 961 . ¶ 30 Recognizing the hazards that accompany the adoption of an inflexible rule, we embrace the Ninth Circuit’s approach in King .

2005Accordingly, to establish the requisite foundation for admissibility of a tape recording, we hold that the proponent of the recording must produce evidence sufficient to persuade the district court “that the recording is accurate, authentic, and generally trustworthy.” Id.

2003See, eg., Statement of Recusal Policy, United States Supreme Court press release, November 1, 1993 (signed by seven justices) (opining that a bright-line rule would multiply opportunities for "selecting law firms with an eye to producing the recusal of particular Justices"); Pashaian v. Eccelston Props., 88 F.3d 77 , 84-85 (2d Cir.1996) (noting the "potential for mischief in ... an inflexible rule" that would allow "a party to recuse a judge by hiring a particular lawyer").

2002Consideration for the plight of other creditors compels the Seventh Circuit’s reading of the federal rules as allowing other forms of security to substitute for a supersedeas bond under appropriate circumstances: “an inflexible requirement of a bond would be inappropriate ... in an age of titanic damage judgments ... where the requirement would put the defendant’s other creditors in undue jeopardy.” Olympia Equip., 786 F.2d at 795 .

2002Consideration for the plight of other creditors compels the Seventh Circuit's reading of the federal rules as allowing other forms of security to substitute for a supersedeas bond under appropriate circumstances: "an inflexible requirement of a bond would be inappropriate ... in an age of titanic damage judgments . . . where the requirement would put the defendant's other creditors in undue jeopardy." Olympia Equip., 786 F.2d at 795 .

1946“The American Law Institute, Eestatement, Contracts, Vol. 2, Sec. 529, states the general principle: ‘Where the intent of a party to a bargain is to make a loan of money or an extension of the maturity of a pecuniary debt for a greater profit than is allowed by law, the agreement is illegal though the transaction is put in whole or in part in the form of a sale, a contract to sell or other contracts.” In Ewalt v. Mortgage Securities Inc., of Santa Barbara, 129 Cal. App. 559 , 19 P. 2d 60, at 62 , the court said: “The terms of the entire contract may be considered in determining whether it was

1946“The American Law Institute, Eestatement, Contracts, Vol. 2, Sec. 529, states the general principle: ‘Where the intent of a party to a bargain is to make a loan of money or an extension of the maturity of a pecuniary debt for a greater profit than is allowed by law, the agreement is illegal though the transaction is put in whole or in part in the form of a sale, a contract to sell or other contracts.” In Ewalt v. Mortgage Securities Inc., of Santa Barbara, 129 Cal. App. 559 , 19 P. 2d 60, at 62 , the court said: “The terms of the entire contract may be considered in determining whether it was