ruling rule in Utah

2018The doctrine of invited error prohibits litigants from inducing the district court "to make a ruling and then argue on appeal that the ruling was in error." Zavala v. Zavala , 2016 UT App 6 , ¶ 21, 366 P.3d 422 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2018The doctrine of invited error prohibits litigants from inducing the district court "to make a ruling and then argue on appeal that the ruling was in error." Zavala v. Zavala , 2016 UT App 6 , ¶ 21, 366 P.3d 422 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2016The invited-error doctrine "is crafted to discourage[ ] parties from intentionally misleading the trial court so as to preserve a hidden ground for reversal on appeal" and "to give the trial court the first opportunity to address the claim of error," State v. Geukgeuzian, 2004 UT 16, ¶ 12 , 86 P.3d 742 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). *427 ¶ 22 Father acknowledges that in the' district court he alleged a material and substantial change of circumstances, specifically, that Mother’s “relocations and conduct constituted changes in circumstances sufficient

2016The invited-error doctrine "is crafted to discourage[ ] parties from intentionally misleading the trial court so as to preserve a hidden ground for reversal on appeal" and "to give the trial court the first opportunity to address the claim of error," State v. Geukgeuzian, 2004 UT 16, ¶ 12 , 86 P.3d 742 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). *427 ¶ 22 Father acknowledges that in the' district court he alleged a material and substantial change of circumstances, specifically, that Mother’s “relocations and conduct constituted changes in circumstances sufficient

2010"A trial court's ruling under rule 408 is reviewed for abuse of discretion." State v. Bluff, 2002 UT 66, ¶ 47 , 52 P.3d 1210 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1172 , 123 S.Ct. 999 , 154 L.Ed.2d 914 (2003).

2010"A trial court's ruling under rule 408 is reviewed for abuse of discretion." State v. Bluff, 2002 UT 66, ¶ 47 , 52 P.3d 1210 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1172 , 123 S.Ct. 999 , 154 L.Ed.2d 914 (2003).

2010"A trial court's ruling under rule 408 is reviewed for abuse of discretion." State v. Bluff, 2002 UT 66, ¶ 47 , 52 P.3d 1210 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1172 , 123 S.Ct. 999 , 154 L.Ed.2d 914 (2003).

2010"A trial court's ruling under rule 408 is reviewed for abuse of discretion." State v. Bluff, 2002 UT 66, ¶ 47 , 52 P.3d 1210 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1172 , 123 S.Ct. 999 , 154 L.Ed.2d 914 (2003).

2026We nevertheless agree that there is no evidence in the record of CMP’s client list as of the date of sale, and, absent that evidence, summary judgment on this claim was improper. 20230024-CA 46 2026 UT App 54 Cook Martin Poulson PC v. Smith ¶84 For us to determine that the date of sale did not occur until after the district court ruled that CMP could purchase Smith’s shares would require us to conclude that the date of sale could not occur until CMP made payment.

2023“We apply differing standards of review to findings of fact, conclusions of law, and determinations of mixed questions of law and fact.” In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 14 , 496 P.3d 58 .

2022New Counsel also argued that Trust Counsel did not act “in good faith” and “was actually self-dealing” because settling the matter would have allowed Trust Counsel to avoid a ruling on the rule 11 motion. 20200411-CA 5 2022 UT App 11 Fritsche v. Deer Valley Ridge ¶17 When arguments concluded, the district court ruled “that the emails between the parties in this case do constitute a binding settlement agreement between the parties.” The court further held that it was “of no legal consequence” that the parties failed to sign the Draft Agreement because “[i]f a written agreement is intended to me

2021Bear asserts that by not immediately 20200183-CA 14 2021 UT App 129 Bear v. LifeMap Assurance Co. acting to remedy the problems, LifeMap effectively “put its head in the sand.” But even when viewing this fact in the light most favorable to Bear, namely by assuming that LifeMap would have discovered the District was erroneously deducting increased premiums from Bear’s payroll if it had acted prudently, this does not amount to waiver. ¶26 “A waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right.” McCleve Props., LLC v. D.

2020Nevertheless, in its brief, Pacific Coast identified its challenge to the court’s rule 60(b) ruling as one of the issues it wanted to bring to our attention on appeal, and Zion Village responded to that argument on its merits, without raising any concerns about appellate jurisdiction. ¶46 After oral argument, we realized that we may not have appellate jurisdiction to consider Pacific Coast’s challenge to the district court’s rule 60(b) ruling and, recognizing our “independent obligation to ensure that we have jurisdiction over all matters before us,” see Trapnell & Assocs., LLC v. Legacy Resor

2020Nevertheless, in its brief, Pacific Coast identified its challenge to the court’s rule 60(b) ruling as one of the issues it wanted to bring to our attention on appeal, and Zion Village responded to that argument on its merits, without raising any concerns about appellate jurisdiction. ¶46 After oral argument, we realized that we may not have appellate jurisdiction to consider Pacific Coast’s challenge to the district court’s rule 60(b) ruling and, recognizing our “independent obligation to ensure that we have jurisdiction over all matters before us,” see Trapnell & Assocs., LLC v. Legacy Resor

2020In order to invoke our appellate jurisdiction to review a court’s decision on a rule 60(b) motion, parties generally “must either file a separate notice of appeal regarding those orders or, if they 20190736-CA and 20190831-CA 24 2020 UT App 167 Zion Village v. Pro Curb U.S.A. are entered before the filing of the notice of appeal, at least specifically mention them in the notice of appeal being taken from the final judgment.” Wilson v. Sanders, 2019 UT App 126, ¶ 29 , 447 P.3d 1240 .

2020In order to invoke our appellate jurisdiction to review a court’s decision on a rule 60(b) motion, parties generally “must either file a separate notice of appeal regarding those orders or, if they 20190736-CA and 20190831-CA 24 2020 UT App 167 Zion Village v. Pro Curb U.S.A. are entered before the filing of the notice of appeal, at least specifically mention them in the notice of appeal being taken from the final judgment.” Wilson v. Sanders, 2019 UT App 126, ¶ 29 , 447 P.3d 1240 .

2020In order to invoke our appellate jurisdiction to review a court’s decision on a rule 60(b) motion, parties generally “must either file a separate notice of appeal regarding those orders or, if they 20190736-CA and 20190831-CA 24 2020 UT App 167 Zion Village v. Pro Curb U.S.A. are entered before the filing of the notice of appeal, at least specifically mention them in the notice of appeal being taken from the final judgment.” Wilson v. Sanders, 2019 UT App 126, ¶ 29 , 447 P.3d 1240 .

2019Jensen v. Intermountain Power Agency , 1999 UT 10 , ¶ 7, 977 P.2d 474 ; see also Perea v. State , 2017 UT App 67 , ¶ 6, 397 P.3d 770 (stating that "a ruling on a rule 60(b) motion culminates in a separate, appealable order" that usually "may not be included in an existing appeal because the issues raised in the appeal predated the ruling on the rule 60(b) motion" (quotation simplified)). ¶14 Fifth, Defendants contend that the trial court erred "in permitting inadmissible and prejudicial testimony throughout the trial." "We grant a trial court broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence and w

2019Jensen v. Intermountain Power Agency , 1999 UT 10 , ¶ 7, 977 P.2d 474 ; see also Perea v. State , 2017 UT App 67 , ¶ 6, 397 P.3d 770 (stating that "a ruling on a rule 60(b) motion culminates in a separate, appealable order" that usually "may not be included in an existing appeal because the issues raised in the appeal predated the ruling on the rule 60(b) motion" (quotation simplified)). ¶14 Fifth, Defendants contend that the trial court erred "in permitting inadmissible and prejudicial testimony throughout the trial." "We grant a trial court broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence and w

2018In any event, Kirsling did not preserve his argument that the court erred in applying the substantial change of circumstances standard rather than "a less strict" standard "for a change in parent time." See Baumann v. Kroger Co. , 2017 UT 80 , ¶¶ 17-18, 416 P.3d 512 (deeming an argument unpreserved where the appellant did not argue for the more forgiving standard she advocated for on appeal and where she arguably invited the district court to apply the less forgiving standard).

2018In any event, Kirsling did not preserve his argument that the court erred in applying the substantial change of circumstances standard rather than "a less strict" standard "for a change in parent time." See Baumann v. Kroger Co. , 2017 UT 80 , ¶¶ 17-18, 416 P.3d 512 (deeming an argument unpreserved where the appellant did not argue for the more forgiving standard she advocated for on appeal and where she arguably invited the district court to apply the less forgiving standard).

2018Motions to "reconsider or revise nonfinal judgments ... are sanctioned by our rules," Gillett v. Price , 2006 UT 24 , ¶ 10, 135 P.3d 861 , and have been recognized as "a proper vehicle" to ask the court to reconsider a summary judgment decision, including where "there has been a change in the governing law," Trembly v. Mrs. Fields Cookies , 884 P.2d 1306 , 1311 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (identifying factors that may weigh in favor of reconsidering a prior ruling under rule 54(b) ).

2018Motions to "reconsider or revise nonfinal judgments ... are sanctioned by our rules," Gillett v. Price , 2006 UT 24 , ¶ 10, 135 P.3d 861 , and have been recognized as "a proper vehicle" to ask the court to reconsider a summary judgment decision, including where "there has been a change in the governing law," Trembly v. Mrs. Fields Cookies , 884 P.2d 1306 , 1311 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (identifying factors that may weigh in favor of reconsidering a prior ruling under rule 54(b) ).

2016For instance, the demonstration of a "meritorious defense" requires no more than "a clear and specific proffer of a defense that, if proven, would preclude total or partial recovery," requiring only "that a party state the basis for its claims or defenses-in short and plain terms." Sewell v. Xpress Lube, 2013 UT 61 , 188, 321 P.3d 1080 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2016For instance, the demonstration of a "meritorious defense" requires no more than "a clear and specific proffer of a defense that, if proven, would preclude total or partial recovery," requiring only "that a party state the basis for its claims or defenses-in short and plain terms." Sewell v. Xpress Lube, 2013 UT 61 , 188, 321 P.3d 1080 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2014Father does not argue that the district court failed to give appropriate attention to the agreement’s ‚legal (continued...) 20130188-CA 6 2014 UT App 270 R.B. v. L.B. district court never ruled that the agreement was void as against public policy, Father’s argument that such a ruling was error necessarily fails.