detailed analysis in Utah

1938Long passages from Bancroft, from In re Owens' Estate , 30 Utah 351 , 85 P. 277 , and from Woerner are quoted which, while containing the word "jurisdiction" or "judicial powers" plainly show that it was not meant to consider the distinction between jurisdiction and error.

1938Long passages from Bancroft, from In re Owens' Estate , 30 Utah 351 , 85 P. 277 , and from Woerner are quoted which, while containing the word "jurisdiction" or "judicial powers" plainly show that it was not meant to consider the distinction between jurisdiction and error.

2021But in any event, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect that a vendor who has not been paid as promised, but who has been repeatedly assured that payment will be forthcoming from a loan, will inquire as to the status of the loan application process and ask for copies of applications and the like, and for the name of the loan officer with whom the borrower is dealing—and to then draw an appropriate inference if such straightforward information is not readily produced. 20200043-CA 18 2021 UT App 70 HKS Architects v. MSM Enterprises ¶29 HKS claims that the payment that came from BTS “was design

2005A more detailed analysis of the conditional use permit and county and roadway ordinances is found in Culbertson I, 2001 UT 108, ¶¶ 35-49 , 44 P.3d 642 .

2005A more detailed analysis of the conditional use permit and county and roadway ordinances is found in Culbertson I, 2001 UT 108, ¶¶ 35-49 , 44 P.3d 642 .

2002First, although that case admittedly stated that a sentencing court had to consider each of the statutory factors listed in the precursor to subsection 76-3-201(8) 9 and explicitly note “on the record the reasons for the decision it reached, reflecting the detailed factors listed in the statute,” id. at 1234 , it does not stand for the proposition that a sentencing court must make findings on the record as to each of the statutory factors.

2002First, although that case admittedly stated that a sentencing court had to consider each of the statutory factors listed in the precursor to subsection 76-3-201(8) [9] and explicitly note "on the record the reasons for the decision it reached, reflecting the detailed factors listed in the statute," id. at 1234 , it does not stand for the proposition that a sentencing court must make findings on the record as to each of the statutory factors.

2001"By giving a detailed instruction on the elements of the crime with which [defendants] w[ere] charged, the court ensured that a jury finding of good faith would lead to acquittal." Id.

1997In Wade , we addressed the question of unconseionability in the context of the UCSPA and in doing so relied upon an earlier case, Resource Management, 706 P.2d at 1041 , wherein the doctrine of unconseionability was discussed at length.

1994Vincent, 845 P.2d at 258 .

1993The only detailed analysis of the doctrine is in a case from early in this century, Martin v. Hickenlooper, 90 Utah 150 , 59 P.2d 1139 (1936).

1993The only detailed analysis of the doctrine is in a case from early in this century, Martin v. Hickenlooper, 90 Utah 150 , 59 P.2d 1139 (1936).

1944Hale, in an article appearing in 55 Harvard Law Review 1116, entitled “Does the Ghost of Smyth v. Ames Still Walk?” makes a detailed study of the opinion and many of the earlier cases leading up to it. *175 After a detailed analysis, Hale concluded that in spite of the statement by Black, Douglas, and Murphy that “We think this is an appropriate occasion to lay the ghost of Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466 , 18 S. Ct. 418 , 42 L.

1944Hale, in an article appearing in 55 Harvard Law Review 1116, entitled “Does the Ghost of Smyth v. Ames Still Walk?” makes a detailed study of the opinion and many of the earlier cases leading up to it. *175 After a detailed analysis, Hale concluded that in spite of the statement by Black, Douglas, and Murphy that “We think this is an appropriate occasion to lay the ghost of Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466 , 18 S. Ct. 418 , 42 L.

1944Hale, in an article appearing in 55 Harvard Law Review 1116, entitled “Does the Ghost of Smyth v. Ames Still Walk?” makes a detailed study of the opinion and many of the earlier cases leading up to it. *175 After a detailed analysis, Hale concluded that in spite of the statement by Black, Douglas, and Murphy that “We think this is an appropriate occasion to lay the ghost of Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466 , 18 S. Ct. 418 , 42 L.

1941Without going into a detailed analysis of the constitutional question involved, we quote the language used in the Iowa case of State v. Engler, supra, and the New Mexico case of State v. Roy, supra. Both of these cases relied on the analysis and reasoning of the New York Court of Appeals in the case of People v. Bogdanoff, 254 N. Y. 16 , 171 N. E. 890 ; 69 A. L.

1941Without going into a detailed analysis of the constitutional question involved, we quote the language used in the Iowa case of State v. Engler, supra, and the New Mexico case of State v. Roy, supra. Both of these cases relied on the analysis and reasoning of the New York Court of Appeals in the case of People v. Bogdanoff, 254 N. Y. 16 , 171 N. E. 890 ; 69 A. L.

1941Without going into a detailed analysis of the constitutional question involved, we quote the language used in the Iowa case of State v. Engler, supra, and the New Mexico case of State v. Roy, supra. Both of these cases relied on the analysis and reasoning of the New York Court of Appeals in the case of People v. Bogdanoff, 254 N. Y. 16 , 171 N. E. 890 ; 69 A. L.

1941A detailed analysis of the nature, purpose and controlling principles of our Public Utilities Act is made in the case of Mulcahy v. Public Service Commission, [ 101 Utah 245 , 117 P. 2d 305 ], cited supra. Discussing the same question we there said: “Should such new service be rendered by existing carriers or by the new applicant?