written statement claim (Utah) · Go Syfert
← Utah issues

written statement claim in Utah

5 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2022 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Quinn v. Estate of Quinngreen
utahctapp · 1989 · cited in 2 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2005–2008
2 sentences

2008“Each proceeding before the court or registrar is independent of any other proceeding involving the same estate,” id. § 75-3-106(l)(a) (1993), even though “[pjetitions for formal orders of the court may combine various requests for relief in a single proceeding,” id. § 75-3-106(l)(b). ¶ 15 The trial court ruled that “the action must be against [the Children], not the [e]state,” that “[i]t is clear that no proceedings against either of the distributees of the real property requested by [Wife] to be recovered has been instituted,” and that the Wife’s argument that “her claim as a creditor of the

2005Quinn v. Quinn, 772 P.2d 979, 980 (Utah Ct.App.1989) (quotations omitted) (citing Dementas v. Estate of Tallas, 764 P.2d 628, 630 (Utah Ct. App.1988)). ¶ 14 Merely providing the PR with a copy of the Agreement, which all parties have always agreed is binding, without explaining how the Agreement had been breached or the amount she was claiming as a creditor under the Agreement, does not begin to satisfy the requirements of notice pleading.

22
Dementas v. Estate of Tallas Ex Rel. First Security Bankgreen
utahctapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005Quinn v. Quinn, 772 P.2d 979, 980 (Utah Ct.App.1989) (quotations omitted) (citing Dementas v. Estate of Tallas, 764 P.2d 628, 630 (Utah Ct. App.1988)). ¶ 14 Merely providing the PR with a copy of the Agreement, which all parties have always agreed is binding, without explaining how the Agreement had been breached or the amount she was claiming as a creditor under the Agreement, does not begin to satisfy the requirements of notice pleading.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Estate of Huitron v. Kaye green
utah · 2022
1 sentence

2022P. 68(a). 5 The Probate Code describes the manner in which claims may be ―presented‖ to an estate as follows: ―(a) The claimant may deliver or mail to the personal representative, or the personal representative‘s attorney of record, a written statement of the claim indicating its basis, the name and address of the claimant, and the amount claimed, or may file a written statement of the claim, in the form prescribed by rule, with the clerk of the court,‖ UTAH CODE § 75-3-804(1)(a); or ―(b) The claimant may commence a proceeding against the personal representative in any court where the personal

12022–2022
In Re Estate of Uzelac green
utahctapp · 2005
2 sentences

2008“Each proceeding before the court or registrar is independent of any other proceeding involving the same estate,” id. § 75-3-106(l)(a) (1993), even though “[pjetitions for formal orders of the court may combine various requests for relief in a single proceeding,” id. § 75-3-106(l)(b). ¶ 15 The trial court ruled that “the action must be against [the Children], not the [e]state,” that “[i]t is clear that no proceedings against either of the distributees of the real property requested by [Wife] to be recovered has been instituted,” and that the Wife’s argument that “her claim as a creditor of the

2008“Each proceeding before the court or registrar is independent of any other proceeding involving the same estate,” id. § 75-3-106(l)(a) (1993), even though “[pjetitions for formal orders of the court may combine various requests for relief in a single proceeding,” id. § 75-3-106(l)(b). ¶ 15 The trial court ruled that “the action must be against [the Children], not the [e]state,” that “[i]t is clear that no proceedings against either of the distributees of the real property requested by [Wife] to be recovered has been instituted,” and that the Wife’s argument that “her claim as a creditor of the

12008–2008
Black v. Romano green
scotus · 1985
2 sentences

2005LEXIS 33744, *7-8 (10th Cir. Dec. 4, 1995) (unpublished opinion). ¶ 31 Because the purpose of the written statement requirement is to provide a basis for review and encourage accurate factfind-ing, Black, 471 U.S. at 613-14 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 ; Gilbert, 1995 U.S.App.

2005LEXIS 33744, *7-8 (10th Cir. Dec. 4, 1995) (unpublished opinion). ¶ 31 Because the purpose of the written statement requirement is to provide a basis for review and encourage accurate factfind-ing, Black, 471 U.S. at 613-14 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 ; Gilbert, 1995 U.S.App.

12005–2005
State v. Casey green
utah · 2003
2 sentences

2004We reverse and remand. *743 BACKGROUND ¶ 2 “We recite the facts from the record ... in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict.” State v. Casey, 2003 UT 33, ¶ 2 , 82 P.3d 1106 (quotation omitted). ¶ 3 In May 2000, Geukgeuzian was charged with tampering with a witness in violation of Utah Code section 76-8-508(1), 1 and with making a false written statement in violation of Utah Code section 76-8-504(2).

2004We reverse and remand. *743 BACKGROUND ¶ 2 “We recite the facts from the record ... in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict.” State v. Casey, 2003 UT 33, ¶ 2 , 82 P.3d 1106 (quotation omitted). ¶ 3 In May 2000, Geukgeuzian was charged with tampering with a witness in violation of Utah Code section 76-8-508(1), 1 and with making a false written statement in violation of Utah Code section 76-8-504(2).

12004–2004

Where else courts name it

IN 12 (1996–2025) NY 8 (1903–2004) OH 7 (1999–2017) TX 6 (1915–2015) KS 5 (1961–2026) CO 5 (2007–2026) UT 5 (2004–2022) IL 4 (1970–2024) NE 3 (1995–2021) PA 3 (2016–2022) FL 3 (1995–2024) CA 3 (2003–2025) AL 3 (1996–2005) AZ 2 (1996–2011) WA 2 (2010–2010) KY 2 (2010–2023) MD 2 (1987–1996) CT 2 (1938–2021) AR 2 (1943–2014) NJ 2 (1987–1995) DC 2 (1972–1986)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check