applicability of the discovery rule in Utah

2014"The applicability of a statute of limitations and the applicability of the discovery rule are questions of law, which we review for correctness." Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 18 , 108 P.3d 741 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "[Alpplication of the discovery rule also involves a subsidiary factual determination-the point at which a person reasonably should know that he or she has suffered a legal injury." Jensen v. Young, 2010 UT 67, ¶ 10 , 245 P.3d 731 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2014"The applicability of a statute of limitations and the applicability of the discovery rule are questions of law, which we review for correctness." Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 18 , 108 P.3d 741 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "[Alpplication of the discovery rule also involves a subsidiary factual determination-the point at which a person reasonably should know that he or she has suffered a legal injury." Jensen v. Young, 2010 UT 67, ¶ 10 , 245 P.3d 731 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2018See In re Adoption of Baby B , 2012 UT 35 , ¶¶ 51-52, 308 P.3d 382 ; Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City , 2007 UT 25 , ¶ 11, 156 P.3d 806 ; see also State v. Pena , 869 P.2d 932 , 935 (Utah 1994) ("Factual questions are generally regarded as entailing the empirical, such as things, events, actions, or conditions happening, existing, or taking place, as well as the subjective, such as state of mind.

2018See In re Adoption of Baby B , 2012 UT 35 , ¶¶ 51-52, 308 P.3d 382 ; Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City , 2007 UT 25 , ¶ 11, 156 P.3d 806 ; see also State v. Pena , 869 P.2d 932 , 935 (Utah 1994) ("Factual questions are generally regarded as entailing the empirical, such as things, events, actions, or conditions happening, existing, or taking place, as well as the subjective, such as state of mind.

2008Further, " [tlhe applicability of a statute of limitations and the applicability of the discovery rule are questions of law, which we review for correctness." Moore v. Smith, 2007 UT App 101, ¶15 , 158 P.3d 562 (quoting Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶18 , 108 P.3d 741 ), cert. denied, No. 20070404, 182 P.3d 910 (Sept. 17, 2007).

2008Further, " [tlhe applicability of a statute of limitations and the applicability of the discovery rule are questions of law, which we review for correctness." Moore v. Smith, 2007 UT App 101, ¶15 , 158 P.3d 562 (quoting Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶18 , 108 P.3d 741 ), cert. denied, No. 20070404, 182 P.3d 910 (Sept. 17, 2007).

2014"The applicability of a statute of limitations and the applicability of the discovery rule are questions of law, which we review for correctness." Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 18 , 108 P.3d 741 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "[Alpplication of the discovery rule also involves a subsidiary factual determination-the point at which a person reasonably should know that he or she has suffered a legal injury." Jensen v. Young, 2010 UT 67, ¶ 10 , 245 P.3d 731 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2014"The applicability of a statute of limitations and the applicability of the discovery rule are questions of law, which we review for correctness." Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 18 , 108 P.3d 741 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "[Alpplication of the discovery rule also involves a subsidiary factual determination-the point at which a person reasonably should know that he or she has suffered a legal injury." Jensen v. Young, 2010 UT 67, ¶ 10 , 245 P.3d 731 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2014"We review this subsidiary factual determination under a clearly erroneous standard." Bowen v. Bowen, 2011 UT App 352, ¶ 4 , 264 P.3d 233 .

2014"We review this subsidiary factual determination under a clearly erroneous standard." Bowen v. Bowen, 2011 UT App 352, ¶ 4 , 264 P.3d 233 .

2007"To demonstrate plain error, [the appellant] must establish that (1) an error exists; (i) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (ii) the error is harmful, ie., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant." Berkshires, L.L.C,. v. Sykes, 2005 UT App 536, ¶ 21 , 127 P.3d 1243 (quotations and citation omitted). 117 The Smiths also assert that the trial court erred in failing to grant their motions for summary judgment.

2007"To demonstrate plain error, [the appellant] must establish that (1) an error exists; (i) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (ii) the error is harmful, ie., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant." Berkshires, L.L.C,. v. Sykes, 2005 UT App 536, ¶ 21 , 127 P.3d 1243 (quotations and citation omitted). 117 The Smiths also assert that the trial court erred in failing to grant their motions for summary judgment.

2005The early Utah case of Branting v. Salt Lake City, 47 Utah 296 , 153 P. 995 (1915), states that We are very clearly of the opinion that ... actions by which nothing is sought except to remove a cloud from or to quiet the title to real property as against apparent or stale claims are not barred by the statute of limitations, yet we are also clear that all actions in which the principal purpose is to obtain some affirmative relief ... come within the [statute of limitations].

2005The early Utah case of Branting v. Salt Lake City, 47 Utah 296 , 153 P. 995 (1915), states that We are very clearly of the opinion that ... actions by which nothing is sought except to remove a cloud from or to quiet the title to real property as against apparent or stale claims are not barred by the statute of limitations, yet we are also clear that all actions in which the principal purpose is to obtain some affirmative relief ... come within the [statute of limitations].

2005The early Utah case of Branting v. Salt Lake City, 47 Utah 296 , 153 P. 995 (1915), states that We are very clearly of the opinion that ... actions by which nothing is sought except to remove a cloud from or to quiet the title to real property as against apparent or stale claims are not barred by the statute of limitations, yet we are also clear that all actions in which the principal purpose is to obtain some affirmative relief ... come within the [statute of limitations].

2005The early Utah case of Branting v. Salt Lake City, 47 Utah 296 , 153 P. 995 (1915), states that We are very clearly of the opinion that ... actions by which nothing is sought except to remove a cloud from or to quiet the title to real property as against apparent or stale claims are not barred by the statute of limitations, yet we are also clear that all actions in which the principal purpose is to obtain some affirmative relief ... come within the [statute of limitations].