5 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lunnen v. Utah Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2006See Lunnen v. Utah Dep't of Transp., 886 P.2d 70, 73 (Utah Ct.App.1994). 6 . 2006See Lunnen v. Utah Dep't of Transp., 886 P.2d 70, 73 (Utah Ct.App.1994). 6 . | 1 | 1 |
Holmes Development, LLC v. Cookgreen2 sentences2004The trial court denied Kelly's motion to amend, holding that the Utah Supreme Court's decision in Holmes Development, LLC v. Cook, 2002 UT 38 , 48 P.3d 895 , precluded a plaintiff from filing a motion to *742 amend in response to a defendant's motion for summary judgment. 2004The trial court denied Kelly's motion to amend, holding that the Utah Supreme Court's decision in Holmes Development, LLC v. Cook, 2002 UT 38 , 48 P.3d 895 , precluded a plaintiff from filing a motion to *742 amend in response to a defendant's motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jamesgreen1 sentence2004Although the trial court did not rule on this issue, we deem it appropriate to do so here."); see also State v. James, 819 P.2d 781, 795 (Utah 1991) ("Issues that are fully briefed on appeal and are likely to be presented on remand should be addressed by this court."). ¶ 49 Under the general principles set forth above, we conclude that the trial court should have granted Kelly's motion to amend. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kelly v. Timber Lakes Property
green
2 sentences2022But the court allowed Kelly’s remaining claims for damages against Timber Lakes, premised on theories 20191079-CA 7 2022 UT App 23 Kelly v. Timber Lakes of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and entitlement to an accounting, to go forward. ¶16 Around that same time, Kelly also moved for leave to amend his complaint for a second time to add a claim against Timber Lakes for failure to comply with applicable statutes, specifically Utah Code sections 57-1-24 to -26 governing nonjudicial foreclosure of trust deeds. 2022But the court allowed Kelly’s remaining claims for damages against Timber Lakes, premised on theories 20191079-CA 7 2022 UT App 23 Kelly v. Timber Lakes of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and entitlement to an accounting, to go forward. ¶16 Around that same time, Kelly also moved for leave to amend his complaint for a second time to add a claim against Timber Lakes for failure to comply with applicable statutes, specifically Utah Code sections 57-1-24 to -26 governing nonjudicial foreclosure of trust deeds. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Labrum v. Utah State Bar
green
2 sentences2024Rather, we looked more closely at his experience and determined that his exposure to U.S. law in practice was comparable to that of 32 Cite as: 2024 UT 24 HAGEN, J., dissenting a foreign attorney applicant who had received supplemental education from an ABA-approved law school. ¶78 Below, we apply the Kelly framework to Labrum’s education and legal experience. 2024Rather, we looked more closely at his experience and determined that his exposure to U.S. law in practice was comparable to that of 32 Cite as: 2024 UT 24 HAGEN, J., dissenting a foreign attorney applicant who had received supplemental education from an ABA-approved law school. ¶78 Below, we apply the Kelly framework to Labrum’s education and legal experience. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Kelly v. Utah State Bar
green
2 sentences2024Before applying that standard to the facts presented by Labrum’s petition, we note an important way in which our analysis differs from that of the majority. ¶80 The majority cites Kelly for the proposition that, in evaluating the first waiver requirement, “we will not merely consider whether an applicant has satisfied the purpose of a particular rule—which may be narrow,” but “will also ‘consider more globally an applicant’s competence to practice law.’” Supra ¶ 14 (quoting Kelly, 2017 UT 6, ¶ 11 ). 2024Before applying that standard to the facts presented by Labrum’s petition, we note an important way in which our analysis differs from that of the majority. ¶80 The majority cites Kelly for the proposition that, in evaluating the first waiver requirement, “we will not merely consider whether an applicant has satisfied the purpose of a particular rule—which may be narrow,” but “will also ‘consider more globally an applicant’s competence to practice law.’” Supra ¶ 14 (quoting Kelly, 2017 UT 6, ¶ 11 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.