section 78 exercise jurisdiction in Utah

2021STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶12 ―On certiorari, this court reviews the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, giving no deference to its conclusions of law.‖ State v. Marquina, 2020 UT 66, ¶ 24 , 478 P.3d 37 (citation omitted).

2021STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶12 ―On certiorari, this court reviews the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, giving no deference to its conclusions of law.‖ State v. Marquina, 2020 UT 66, ¶ 24 , 478 P.3d 37 (citation omitted).

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶13 On certiorari, ―we review the decision of the court of appeals and not that of the [trial] court.‖ State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 125, ¶ 25 , 63 P.3d 650 (citation omitted).

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶13 On certiorari, ―we review the decision of the court of appeals and not that of the [trial] court.‖ State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 125, ¶ 25 , 63 P.3d 650 (citation omitted).

2023STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶31 We review a district court’s ―grant or denial of summary judgment for correctness,‖ viewing ―the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.‖ Orvis v. Johnson, 2008 UT 2, ¶ 6 , 177 P.3d 600 (cleaned up). ¶32 ―We review a district court’s decision on sanctions under rule 26(d)(4) [of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure] . . . for an abuse of discretion.‖ Keystone Ins.

2023STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶31 We review a district court’s ―grant or denial of summary judgment for correctness,‖ viewing ―the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.‖ Orvis v. Johnson, 2008 UT 2, ¶ 6 , 177 P.3d 600 (cleaned up). ¶32 ―We review a district court’s decision on sanctions under rule 26(d)(4) [of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure] . . . for an abuse of discretion.‖ Keystone Ins.

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶23 “On certiorari, this court reviews the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, giving no deference to its conclusions of law.” State v. Baker, 2010 UT 18, ¶ 7 , 229 P.3d 650 .

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶23 “On certiorari, this court reviews the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, giving no deference to its conclusions of law.” State v. Baker, 2010 UT 18, ¶ 7 , 229 P.3d 650 .

2017We granted the writ and, therefore, exercise jurisdiction under Utah Code section 78A-3- 102(3)(a). 3 The State charged Mr. Rushton with the following twenty counts, all of which are allegedly related to Fooptube employee compensation or retirement arrangements and based on conduct that took place in 2008 or 2009: communications fraud (counts 1 and 2); unlawful dealing of property by a fiduciary (counts 3 and 4); theft of services (counts 5 and 6); failure to pay wages (counts 7 through 19, as alternatives to counts 5 and 6); and engaging in a pattern of unlawful activity, in violation of Utah

2017We granted the writ and, therefore, exercise jurisdiction under Utah Code section 78A-3- 102(3)(a). 3 The State charged Mr. Rushton with the following twenty counts, all of which are allegedly related to Fooptube employee compensation or retirement arrangements and based on conduct that took place in 2008 or 2009: communications fraud (counts 1 and 2); unlawful dealing of property by a fiduciary (counts 3 and 4); theft of services (counts 5 and 6); failure to pay wages (counts 7 through 19, as alternatives to counts 5 and 6); and engaging in a pattern of unlawful activity, in violation of Utah

2017We granted the writ and, therefore, exercise jurisdiction under Utah Code section 78A-3- 102(3)(a). 3 The State charged Mr. Rushton with the following twenty counts, all of which are allegedly related to Fooptube employee compensation or retirement arrangements and based on conduct that took place in 2008 or 2009: communications fraud (counts 1 and 2); unlawful dealing of property by a fiduciary (counts 3 and 4); theft of services (counts 5 and 6); failure to pay wages (counts 7 through 19, as alternatives to counts 5 and 6); and engaging in a pattern of unlawful activity, in violation of Utah

2017We granted the writ and, therefore, exercise jurisdiction under Utah Code section 78A-3- 102(3)(a). 3 The State charged Mr. Rushton with the following twenty counts, all of which are allegedly related to Fooptube employee compensation or retirement arrangements and based on conduct that took place in 2008 or 2009: communications fraud (counts 1 and 2); unlawful dealing of property by a fiduciary (counts 3 and 4); theft of services (counts 5 and 6); failure to pay wages (counts 7 through 19, as alternatives to counts 5 and 6); and engaging in a pattern of unlawful activity, in violation of Utah

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶14 We review the grant or denial of a rule 22(e) motion for correctness, giving “no deference to the district court.” State v. Houston, 2015 UT 40, ¶ 16 , 353 P.3d 55 .

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶14 We review the grant or denial of a rule 22(e) motion for correctness, giving “no deference to the district court.” State v. Houston, 2015 UT 40, ¶ 16 , 353 P.3d 55 .

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶33 ―On certiorari, this court reviews the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, giving no deference to its conclusions of law.‖ State v. Ray, 2020 UT 12, ¶ 23 , 469 P.3d 871 (citation omitted). ―When we are presented with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we review a lower court‘s purely factual findings for clear error, but [we] review the application of the law to the facts for correctness.‖ Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶33 ―On certiorari, this court reviews the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, giving no deference to its conclusions of law.‖ State v. Ray, 2020 UT 12, ¶ 23 , 469 P.3d 871 (citation omitted). ―When we are presented with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we review a lower court‘s purely factual findings for clear error, but [we] review the application of the law to the facts for correctness.‖ Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶15 When reviewing a district court‘s summary judgment ruling, we review the court‘s ―legal conclusions and ultimate grant or denial of summary judgment for correctness.‖ Cochegrus v. Herriman City, 2020 UT 14, ¶ 14 , 462 P.3d 357 (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶15 When reviewing a district court‘s summary judgment ruling, we review the court‘s ―legal conclusions and ultimate grant or denial of summary judgment for correctness.‖ Cochegrus v. Herriman City, 2020 UT 14, ¶ 14 , 462 P.3d 357 (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶14 ―On certiorari, this court reviews the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, giving no deference to its conclusions of law.‖ Donovan v. Sutton, 2021 UT 58, ¶ 15 , 498 P.3d 382 (citation omitted).

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶14 ―On certiorari, this court reviews the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, giving no deference to its conclusions of law.‖ Donovan v. Sutton, 2021 UT 58, ¶ 15 , 498 P.3d 382 (citation omitted).

2022Inc., 2020 UT App 159, ¶ 9 . ¶12 We granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Procurement Policy Board‘s dismissal of CenturyLink‘s—now ICS‘s—appeal. ¶13 We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-3-102(3)(a).

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶20 ―On certiorari, we review the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, giving no deference to its conclusions of law.‖ State v. Richins, 2021 UT 50, ¶ 39 , 496 P.3d 158 (citation 5 omitted). ―And ‗[t]he correctness of the court of appeals‘ decision turns, in part, on whether it accurately reviewed the [agency‘s] decision under the appropriate standard of review.‘‖ Murray v. Utah Lab.

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶20 ―On certiorari, we review the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, giving no deference to its conclusions of law.‖ State v. Richins, 2021 UT 50, ¶ 39 , 496 P.3d 158 (citation 5 omitted). ―And ‗[t]he correctness of the court of appeals‘ decision turns, in part, on whether it accurately reviewed the [agency‘s] decision under the appropriate standard of review.‘‖ Murray v. Utah Lab.

2021These are both questions of law, which we review for correctness.6 Davis County v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 2020 UT 17, ¶ 7 , 463 P.3d 619 (stating that “questions of law are reviewed for correctness”); Valcarce v. Fitzgerald, 961 P.2d 305, 315 (Utah 1998) (noting that whether attorney fees are recoverable is a question of law reviewed for correctness).

2021These are both questions of law, which we review for correctness.6 Davis County v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 2020 UT 17, ¶ 7 , 463 P.3d 619 (stating that “questions of law are reviewed for correctness”); Valcarce v. Fitzgerald, 961 P.2d 305, 315 (Utah 1998) (noting that whether attorney fees are recoverable is a question of law reviewed for correctness).

2021Barberry argues in the alternative that if we decide Utah law does govern the attorney fee question, the Reciprocal Fee Statute should not apply under the circumstances here. ¶20 Finally, Barberry argues that even if the district court did not err in its award of attorney fees, the amount of the award was unreasonable. ¶21 We exercise jurisdiction under Utah Code section 78A-3- 102(3)(j). 6 CITE AS: 2021 UT 15 Opinion of the Court STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶22 We must determine which state’s law governs a claim for contractual attorney fees and whether Cottonwood is entitled to recover its attorney

2021STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶22 “We review the district court’s Fourth Amendment ruling de novo.” State v. Anderson, 2015 UT 90, ¶ 7 , 362 P.3d 1232 .

2021STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶22 “We review the district court’s Fourth Amendment ruling de novo.” State v. Anderson, 2015 UT 90, ¶ 7 , 362 P.3d 1232 .

2021STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶14 “A ruling on a motion to dismiss presents a legal question that we review for correctness, affording no deference to the district court’s decision.” Turner v. Staker & Parson Cos., 2012 UT 30, ¶ 7 , 284 P.3d 600 .

2021STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶14 “A ruling on a motion to dismiss presents a legal question that we review for correctness, affording no deference to the district court’s decision.” Turner v. Staker & Parson Cos., 2012 UT 30, ¶ 7 , 284 P.3d 600 .

2021And Ogden City Municipal Code section 4-5-25(H) (2018) permits appeals to the district court from a final decision of a local appeals board only “in accordance with [GRAMA] and the Utah rules of civil procedure.” See infra ¶ 42. 4 Cite as: 2021 UT 48 Opinion of the Court a privacy interest in records has standing to appeal the decision of a local appeals board granting access to those records.” It therefore denied McKitrick’s motion to dismiss. ¶12 We granted leave to McKitrick to appeal from the district court’s interlocutory order denying her motion to dismiss. ¶13 We exercise jurisdiction u

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶23 “On certiorari, we review the court of appeals’ decision for correctness.” PC Riverview, LLC v. Xiao-Yan Cao, 2017 UT 52, ¶ 20 , 424 P.3d 162 .

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶23 “On certiorari, we review the court of appeals’ decision for correctness.” PC Riverview, LLC v. Xiao-Yan Cao, 2017 UT 52, ¶ 20 , 424 P.3d 162 .

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶9 When exercising certiorari jurisdiction, "we review the decision of the court of appeals, not that of the district court." Judge v. Saltz Plastic Surgery, P.C. , 2016 UT 7 , ¶ 11, 367 P.3d 1006 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶9 When exercising certiorari jurisdiction, "we review the decision of the court of appeals, not that of the district court." Judge v. Saltz Plastic Surgery, P.C. , 2016 UT 7 , ¶ 11, 367 P.3d 1006 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶18 Standing is generally a mixed question of fact and law “because it involves the application of a legal standard to a particularized set of facts.” Alpine Homes, Inc. v. City of West Jordan, 2017 UT 45, ¶ 10 , 424 P.3d 95 (citation omitted).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶18 Standing is generally a mixed question of fact and law “because it involves the application of a legal standard to a particularized set of facts.” Alpine Homes, Inc. v. City of West Jordan, 2017 UT 45, ¶ 10 , 424 P.3d 95 (citation omitted).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶8 "Because a summary judgment presents questions of law, we accord no particular deference to the court of appeals' ruling and review it for correctness." Marziale v. Spanish Fork City , 2017 UT 51 , ¶ 8, 423 P.3d 1145 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶8 "Because a summary judgment presents questions of law, we accord no particular deference to the court of appeals' ruling and review it for correctness." Marziale v. Spanish Fork City , 2017 UT 51 , ¶ 8, 423 P.3d 1145 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶14 On certiorari, we review the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, "giving no deference to its conclusions of law." State v. Harker , 2010 UT 56 , ¶ 8, 240 P.3d 780 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶14 On certiorari, we review the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, "giving no deference to its conclusions of law." State v. Harker , 2010 UT 56 , ¶ 8, 240 P.3d 780 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶18 "On certiorari, we review for correctness the decision of the court of appeals ...." Baumann v. Kroger Co. , 2017 UT 80 , ¶ 15, 416 P.3d 512 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶18 "On certiorari, we review for correctness the decision of the court of appeals ...." Baumann v. Kroger Co. , 2017 UT 80 , ¶ 15, 416 P.3d 512 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶17 “The interpretation and constitutionality of a statute are questions of law that we review for correctness.” Waite v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 2017 UT 86, ¶ 5 , 416 P.3d 635 .

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶17 “The interpretation and constitutionality of a statute are questions of law that we review for correctness.” Waite v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 2017 UT 86, ¶ 5 , 416 P.3d 635 .

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶7 "A district court's interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we ... review for correctness." Bryner v. Cardon Outreach, LLC , 2018 UT 52 , ¶ 7, 428 P.3d 1096 (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶7 "A district court's interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we ... review for correctness." Bryner v. Cardon Outreach, LLC , 2018 UT 52 , ¶ 7, 428 P.3d 1096 (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶9 The decision to grant a petition for extraordinary relief “lies within the sound discretion of this court.” Mawhinney v. City of Draper, 2014 UT 54, ¶ 5 , 342 P.3d 262 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Krejci v. City of Saratoga Springs, 2013 UT 74, ¶ 10 , 322 P.3d 662 (“The decision to grant or deny a petition for extraordinary writ is discretionary.”).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶9 The decision to grant a petition for extraordinary relief “lies within the sound discretion of this court.” Mawhinney v. City of Draper, 2014 UT 54, ¶ 5 , 342 P.3d 262 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Krejci v. City of Saratoga Springs, 2013 UT 74, ¶ 10 , 322 P.3d 662 (“The decision to grant or deny a petition for extraordinary writ is discretionary.”).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶11 “We review the grant of a motion to dismiss for correctness, granting no deference to the decision of the district court.” Hudgens v. Prosper, Inc., 2010 UT 68, ¶ 14 , 243 P.3d 1275 .

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶11 “We review the grant of a motion to dismiss for correctness, granting no deference to the decision of the district court.” Hudgens v. Prosper, Inc., 2010 UT 68, ¶ 14 , 243 P.3d 1275 .