Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Laub v. SOUTH CENTRAL UTAH TELEPHONE ASS'Ngreen2 sentences2022Ass’n, Inc., 657 P.2d 1304 , 1306-07 (Utah 1982) (holding that the residuary clause of rule 60(b) may be employed only if the ground asserted for relief is ―one other than those listed in [the preceding] __________________________________________________________ 24 In State v. Thomas, this court adopted the two-part test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) to determine when a juror‘s failure to answer honestly a question on voir dire entitles the defendant to a new trial. 830 P.2d 243, 245 (Utah 1992). 43 subdivisi 2015Ass'n, 657 P.2d 1304, 1306-07 (Utah 1982) (holding that the residuary clause of rule 60(b) may be employed only if the ground asserted for relief is "one other than those listed" in the preceding subsections). | 5 | 7 |
Menzies v. Galetkagreen2 sentences2022See Menzies, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 71 (noting that subsection 60(b)(6) is a “catch-all provision of rule 60(b) . . . meant to operate as a residuary clause”) (quotation simplified). ¶25 Ahmad’s argument boils down to two points. 2022Our supreme court has explained that this “catch-all” provision of rule 60(b) “is meant to operate as a residuary clause.” Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 71 , 150 P.3d 480 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 5 |
Kanzee v. Kanzeegreen1 sentence2022Ass’n, Inc., 657 P.2d 1304 , 1306-07 (Utah 1982) (holding that the residuary clause of rule 60(b) may be employed only if the ground asserted for relief is ―one other than those listed in [the preceding] __________________________________________________________ 24 In State v. Thomas, this court adopted the two-part test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) to determine when a juror‘s failure to answer honestly a question on voir dire entitles the defendant to a new trial. 830 P.2d 243, 245 (Utah 1992). 43 subdivisi | 1 | 1 |
Horne v. Hornegreen2 sentences2022Because rule 20200845-CA 3 2022 UT App 54 Horne v. Horne 60(b)(6) permits a court to relieve a party from judgment only if the party alleges “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment,” it “may not be relied upon if the asserted grounds for relief fall within any other subsection of rule 60(b).” Id. (quotation simplified); see also id. (“[T]he grounds for relief under 60(b)(6) are exclusive of the grounds for relief allowed under other subsections.”). 2022Because rule 20200845-CA 3 2022 UT App 54 Horne v. Horne 60(b)(6) permits a court to relieve a party from judgment only if the party alleges “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment,” it “may not be relied upon if the asserted grounds for relief fall within any other subsection of rule 60(b).” Id. (quotation simplified); see also id. (“[T]he grounds for relief under 60(b)(6) are exclusive of the grounds for relief allowed under other subsections.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thomasgreen1 sentence2022Ass’n, Inc., 657 P.2d 1304 , 1306-07 (Utah 1982) (holding that the residuary clause of rule 60(b) may be employed only if the ground asserted for relief is ―one other than those listed in [the preceding] __________________________________________________________ 24 In State v. Thomas, this court adopted the two-part test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) to determine when a juror‘s failure to answer honestly a question on voir dire entitles the defendant to a new trial. 830 P.2d 243, 245 (Utah 1992). 43 subdivisi | 1 | 1 |
St. Pierre v. Edmondsgreen1 sentence2016Pierre v. Edmonds, 645 P.2d 615, 617-18 (Utah 1982) (“Rule 60(b) authorizes the trial court, on motion, to relieve a party from a final judgment or a decree procured by fraud ... but only if the motion is made within three months after the judgment.”). ¶15 As “the residuary clause of rule 60(b),” subparagraph (6) comprises three requirements: “First, that the reason be one other than those listed in sub[paragraph] (1) through ([5]); second, that the reason justify *687 relief; and third, that the motion be made within a reasonable time.” Laub v. South Central Utah Tel. | 1 | 1 |
Kunzler v. O'DELLgreen1 sentence2011Second, although rule 60(b)(6) cannot be used to rule on the merits of the underlying case, see Franklin Covey Client Sales, Inc. v. Melvin, 2000 UT App 110, ¶ 19 , 2 P.3d 451 , the rule may be used to relieve a party from a final judgment that conflicts with a court's previous ruling, see Kunzler, 855 P.2d at 274 (affirming grant of rule 60(b) motion where "[the court, without the benefit of a survey, relied on an erroneous exhibit that both parties testified from" to fix the boundaries of a prescriptive easement); see also Margis, 2003 UT App 1060 , para. 6, 2003 WL 21293822 (mem.) (affirmin | 1 | 1 |
Community Dental Services, Dba Smilecare Dental Group v. Stuart Tani, Ddsgreen2 sentences2006See Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.2002); Russell, 681 P.2d at 1195 ; Laub v. S. Cent. 2006See Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.2002); Russell, 681 P.2d at 1195 ; Laub v. S. Cent. | 1 | 1 |
Lincoln Benefit Life Insurance Co. v. D.T. Southern Propertiesgreen1 sentence1999Properties, 838 P.2d 672, 674 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (quoting Laub v. South Cent. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fritsche v. Deer Valley Ridge
green
2 sentences2024This is sometimes referred to as “the rule’s residuary clause,” and we’ve held that the “power given to courts by rule 60(b)(6) should be cautiously and sparingly invoked” and “should be used only in unusual and exceptional instances.” Fritsche v. Deer Valley Ridge at Silver Lake Ass’n of Unit Owners, 2022 UT App 11 , ¶¶ 46-47, 504 P.3d 761 (quotation simplified). ¶63 The district court rejected CBED’s rule 60(b)(6) argument, in part, because of its conclusion that “CBED advance[d] no separate set of facts or arguments uniquely addressed to this Court’s discretion under Rule 60(b)(6).” We see 2024This is sometimes referred to as “the rule’s residuary clause,” and we’ve held that the “power given to courts by rule 60(b)(6) should be cautiously and sparingly invoked” and “should be used only in unusual and exceptional instances.” Fritsche v. Deer Valley Ridge at Silver Lake Ass’n of Unit Owners, 2022 UT App 11 , ¶¶ 46-47, 504 P.3d 761 (quotation simplified). ¶63 The district court rejected CBED’s rule 60(b)(6) argument, in part, because of its conclusion that “CBED advance[d] no separate set of facts or arguments uniquely addressed to this Court’s discretion under Rule 60(b)(6).” We see | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Cohen Braffits Development v. Shae Financial Group
green
1 sentence2024This is sometimes referred to as “the rule’s residuary clause,” and we’ve held that the “power given to courts by rule 60(b)(6) should be cautiously and sparingly invoked” and “should be used only in unusual and exceptional instances.” Fritsche v. Deer Valley Ridge at Silver Lake Ass’n of Unit Owners, 2022 UT App 11 , ¶¶ 46-47, 504 P.3d 761 (quotation simplified). ¶63 The district court rejected CBED’s rule 60(b)(6) argument, in part, because of its conclusion that “CBED advance[d] no separate set of facts or arguments uniquely addressed to this Court’s discretion under Rule 60(b)(6).” We see | 1 | 2024–2024 |
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood
green
1 sentence2022Ass’n, Inc., 657 P.2d 1304 , 1306-07 (Utah 1982) (holding that the residuary clause of rule 60(b) may be employed only if the ground asserted for relief is ―one other than those listed in [the preceding] __________________________________________________________ 24 In State v. Thomas, this court adopted the two-part test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) to determine when a juror‘s failure to answer honestly a question on voir dire entitles the defendant to a new trial. 830 P.2d 243, 245 (Utah 1992). 43 subdivisi | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Carter v. State
green
1 sentence2022Ass’n, Inc., 657 P.2d 1304 , 1306-07 (Utah 1982) (holding that the residuary clause of rule 60(b) may be employed only if the ground asserted for relief is ―one other than those listed in [the preceding] __________________________________________________________ 24 In State v. Thomas, this court adopted the two-part test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) to determine when a juror‘s failure to answer honestly a question on voir dire entitles the defendant to a new trial. 830 P.2d 243, 245 (Utah 1992). 43 subdivisi | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Peck v. Peck
green
2 sentences2020“In cases where subsection (b)(1) applies, a movant may not attempt to circumvent the three-month filing 20180732-CA 8 2020 UT App 14 Peck v. Peck period by relying on another subsection.” Menzies, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 65 . ¶14 Gross attorney negligence that is “too egregious and exceptional to be encompassed by rule 60(b)(1)” may be assessed under the residuary clause. 2020As any differences between the orders are not relevant to the issue presented on appeal, we refer to the most recent version of the order for simplicity. 20180732-CA 3 2020 UT App 14 Peck v. Peck ¶7 Kevin next filed a motion pursuant to rules 60(a) and 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, requesting that the court either correct the date as a clerical error or set aside the QDRO using “the residuary clause of rule 60(b)” due to gross attorney negligence. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Stellia Limited v. Yknot Global Limited
green
2 sentences2016But as we explain in Stel *40 liao Limited v. Yknot Global Limited (the companion case to this one) rule 41(a) plainly mandates that a second voluntary dismissal will be treated as though it were dismissed on the merits. 2016 UT App 133, 24 , 379 P.3d 29 ; see Utah R. 2016But as we explain in Stel *40 liao Limited v. Yknot Global Limited (the companion case to this one) rule 41(a) plainly mandates that a second voluntary dismissal will be treated as though it were dismissed on the merits. 2016 UT App 133, 24 , 379 P.3d 29 ; see Utah R. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Asset Acceptance LLC v. Stocks
green
1 sentence2016Therefore, because Stocks’s stated reasons for the relief he sought in the district court fall within the scope of rule 60(b)(1), he may not avail himself of subsection (6). ¶16 Although Stocks explained to the district court that he ‚made a mistake,‛ it is this claimed ‚mistake‛ that seems to be his ‚excuse‛ for neglecting the request for discovery, the motion for summary judgment, and the notice to submit for decision. (<continued) Stocks’s claim of newly discovered evidence, precisely because he did not present any. 20140898-CA 12 2016 UT App 84 Asset Acceptance v. Stocks But Stocks’s actio | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Franklin Covey Client Sales, Inc. v. Melvin
green
2 sentences2011Second, although rule 60(b)(6) cannot be used to rule on the merits of the underlying case, see Franklin Covey Client Sales, Inc. v. Melvin, 2000 UT App 110, ¶ 19 , 2 P.3d 451 , the rule may be used to relieve a party from a final judgment that conflicts with a court's previous ruling, see Kunzler, 855 P.2d at 274 (affirming grant of rule 60(b) motion where "[the court, without the benefit of a survey, relied on an erroneous exhibit that both parties testified from" to fix the boundaries of a prescriptive easement); see also Margis, 2003 UT App 1060 , para. 6, 2003 WL 21293822 (mem.) (affirmin 2011Second, although rule 60(b)(6) cannot be used to rule on the merits of the underlying case, see Franklin Covey Client Sales, Inc. v. Melvin, 2000 UT App 110, ¶ 19 , 2 P.3d 451 , the rule may be used to relieve a party from a final judgment that conflicts with a court's previous ruling, see Kunzler, 855 P.2d at 274 (affirming grant of rule 60(b) motion where "[the court, without the benefit of a survey, relied on an erroneous exhibit that both parties testified from" to fix the boundaries of a prescriptive easement); see also Margis, 2003 UT App 1060 , para. 6, 2003 WL 21293822 (mem.) (affirmin | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Russell v. Martell
green
2 sentences2006See Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.2002); Russell, 681 P.2d at 1195 ; Laub v. S. Cent. 2006See Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.2002); Russell, 681 P.2d at 1195 ; Laub v. S. Cent. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Anderson v. Public Service Com'n of Utah
green
1 sentence1999"Such a result would be unacceptable." Id. ¶ 15 Black also argues that the facts and circumstances justified setting aside the default and order under the residuary clause of Rule 60(b)(6). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hughes v. Sanders
green
2 sentences1982E.g., Hughes v. Sanders, 287 F. Supp. 332 (E.D.Okl. 1968). 1982E.g., Hughes v. Sanders, 287 F.Supp. 332 (E.D.Okl.1968). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.