14 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hansen v. Stewartgreen2 sentences2016Because Schreib's challenge to the denial of her motions attacks the sufficiency of the evidence, she should "marshal all the evidence supporting the verdict and then show that the evidence cannot support the verdict." 9 Hansen 761 P.2d at 17-18 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also DeBry v. Cascade Enters., 879 P.2d 1353, 1359-60 (Utah 1994) ("For the Court to rule that the [plaintiffs] were entitled to a judgment n.o.v. in the amount of all the damages they claim, the [plaintiffs] must not only marshal all evidence that supports the verdict; they must also demonstrate tha 1994Hansen, 761 P.2d at 17-18 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2022See id. ¶19 In the district court, Ahhmigo’s legal theory focused on whether the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law when he failed to apply the damages framework we used in Madsen, 743 P.2d at 1215–17.5 In its motion to vacate, Ahhmigo argued that: [T]he Arbitrator was obligated to apply well- established and controlling Utah authority. | 1 | 1 |
Madsen v. Murrey & Sons Co., Inc.green1 sentence2022See id. ¶19 In the district court, Ahhmigo’s legal theory focused on whether the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law when he failed to apply the damages framework we used in Madsen, 743 P.2d at 1215–17.5 In its motion to vacate, Ahhmigo argued that: [T]he Arbitrator was obligated to apply well- established and controlling Utah authority. | 1 | 1 |
Treasure Valley Bank v. Killen & Pittenger, P.A.green1 sentence2019See, e.g., Treasure Valley Bank v. Killen & Pittenger, P.A., 732 P.2d 326, 328 (Idaho 1987) (following the damages rule and concluding that the malpractice claim accrued when the bankruptcy plan was confirmed and the creditor lost its opportunity to secure post-confirmation interest on its claim). 7 MOSHIER v. FISHER Opinion of the Court deadline, which precluded the Moshiers from litigating their nondischargeability claim. | 1 | 1 |
DeBry v. Cascade Enterprisesgreen1 sentence2016Because Schreib's challenge to the denial of her motions attacks the sufficiency of the evidence, she should "marshal all the evidence supporting the verdict and then show that the evidence cannot support the verdict." 9 Hansen 761 P.2d at 17-18 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also DeBry v. Cascade Enters., 879 P.2d 1353, 1359-60 (Utah 1994) ("For the Court to rule that the [plaintiffs] were entitled to a judgment n.o.v. in the amount of all the damages they claim, the [plaintiffs] must not only marshal all evidence that supports the verdict; they must also demonstrate tha | 1 | 1 |
Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp.green2 sentences2015See Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 2009 UT 2, ¶ 52 , 201 P.3d 966 . ¶68 Actual damages is also a necessary element of a damages claim under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA). 2015See Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 2009 UT 2, ¶ 52 , 201 P.3d 966 . ¶68 Actual damages is also a necessary element of a damages claim under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA). | 1 | 1 |
Pennington v. Allstate Insurance Co.green2 sentences2014T48 The parties have pointed us to two decisions from Utah's appellate courts that address whether evidence of a plaintiff's first contact with an attorney is admissible in an action arising from personal injuries In Pennington v. Allstate Insurance Co., 973 P.2d 932 (Utah 1998), the Utah Supreme Court considered the actions taken by the plaintiff after he retained his father-in-law as counsel to be relevant in upholding the trial court's imposition of sanctions against them for, among other things, inflating the plaintiff's damages claim. 2014See id. at 984-89 . | 1 | 1 |
Larsen v. Collinagreen1 sentence2011See Larsen, 684 P.2d at 56 ; Russell, 681 P.2d at 1195 . 1 14 In this case, the relief sought from the court on Michelex's default was a judgment for "all amounts Michelex owes to [Enpack] . up to the amount of the Judgment." While the amount of the judgment against Enpack was fixed and known, the amount Michelex may have owed to Enpack was not; that amount was therefore unliquidated. | 1 | 1 |
Valcarce v. Fitzgeraldgreen1 sentence2008See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commercial Club Building v. Global Rescue
green
2 sentences2026But in a posttrial ruling, the trial court significantly reduced the damages on that claim to $77,531.35. 20240124-CA 3 2026 UT App 6 Commercial Club Building v. Global Rescue promote an injustice or an inequitable result would follow if I were to recognize that separate corporate existence.” Id. (quotation simplified). ¶7 In the prior appeal, Global Rescue argued, in relevant part, that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the Fairness Requirement was satisfied. 2026But in a posttrial ruling, the trial court significantly reduced the damages on that claim to $77,531.35. 20240124-CA 3 2026 UT App 6 Commercial Club Building v. Global Rescue promote an injustice or an inequitable result would follow if I were to recognize that separate corporate existence.” Id. (quotation simplified). ¶7 In the prior appeal, Global Rescue argued, in relevant part, that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the Fairness Requirement was satisfied. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Gallegos v. One Commerce Street
green
2 sentences2025A party seeking review of an unpreserved issue must establish the applicability of one of these 20240180-CA 6 2025 UT App 196 Gallegos v. One Commerce Street exceptions to persuade an appellate court to reach that issue.” Id. (cleaned up). 6 ¶15 Here, counsel for OCS appeared at the damages hearing before the district court and participated fully in the proceeding. 2025A party seeking review of an unpreserved issue must establish the applicability of one of these 20240180-CA 6 2025 UT App 196 Gallegos v. One Commerce Street exceptions to persuade an appellate court to reach that issue.” Id. (cleaned up). 6 ¶15 Here, counsel for OCS appeared at the damages hearing before the district court and participated fully in the proceeding. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
True v. Utah Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2024The court reasoned that “a party may not preserve an issue by merely mentioning it” and that the appellant “at best” “briefly mentioned the alleged agreement between the parties to the district court,” which, “as our preservation rule makes clear, is not enough.” Id. ¶ 22 (cleaned up). ¶15 In True v. Utah Department of Transportation, 2018 UT App 86 , 427 P.3d 338 , without arguing an exception to preservation, the appellants contended that their proximate cause argument 20220474-CA 7 2024 UT App 98 State v. Winter connected to a waiver of governmental immunity under the application of new cas 2024The court reasoned that “a party may not preserve an issue by merely mentioning it” and that the appellant “at best” “briefly mentioned the alleged agreement between the parties to the district court,” which, “as our preservation rule makes clear, is not enough.” Id. ¶ 22 (cleaned up). ¶15 In True v. Utah Department of Transportation, 2018 UT App 86 , 427 P.3d 338 , without arguing an exception to preservation, the appellants contended that their proximate cause argument 20220474-CA 7 2024 UT App 98 State v. Winter connected to a waiver of governmental immunity under the application of new cas | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Winter
green
1 sentence2024The court reasoned that “a party may not preserve an issue by merely mentioning it” and that the appellant “at best” “briefly mentioned the alleged agreement between the parties to the district court,” which, “as our preservation rule makes clear, is not enough.” Id. ¶ 22 (cleaned up). ¶15 In True v. Utah Department of Transportation, 2018 UT App 86 , 427 P.3d 338 , without arguing an exception to preservation, the appellants contended that their proximate cause argument 20220474-CA 7 2024 UT App 98 State v. Winter connected to a waiver of governmental immunity under the application of new cas | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Fuja v. Adams
green
1 sentence2021Indeed, in this case, the Fujas do not argue that the Adamses’ damages claim, if timely filed, must be limited to $5,000. 20200009-CA 6 2021 UT App 55 Fuja v. Adams ¶12 Although rule 65A(c) clearly envisions that a party injured by a wrongful injunction will be able to claim attorney fees and damages, the rule has relatively little to say about how—and when—such a claim is to be pursued. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorp
green
1 sentence2018Also, neither Katschke nor Damages Expert offered a damages analysis grounded in "mathematical accuracy," id. ¶ 100 ; both made a number of assumptions that called into question the firmness of their respective calculations. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Pitts v. Pine Meadow Ranch, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011It agreed with the defendants, however, that where the damages claim was "other than a sum certain," the trial court had an obligation under rule 55(b)(2) to "conduct such hearings and take such evidence as it deems advisable for determining the damages." Id. 2011The supreme court therefore held that there was insufficient credible evidence to support the judgment amount and remanded for a hearing on damages as required by rule 55(b)(2). 2 See id. (interpreting rule 55(b)(2) to require that a trial court receive credible evidence to support the judgment amount). {12 The supreme court took the same approach when it decided J.P.W. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Sachs v. Lesser
green
2 sentences2008SEL cannot be "permitted to enjoy the benefits of [its] separate corporate structure for some purposes while also claiming [that the trial court] elevate[d] form over substance in an attempt to [attach SEL's damages against SDC to RB & G]." Sachs v. Lesser, 2007 UT App 169, ¶ 51 , 163 P.3d 662 (citing Utah State Rd. 2008SEL cannot be "permitted to enjoy the benefits of [its] separate corporate structure for some purposes while also claiming [that the trial court] elevate[d] form over substance in an attempt to [attach SEL's damages against SDC to RB & G]." Sachs v. Lesser, 2007 UT App 169, ¶ 51 , 163 P.3d 662 (citing Utah State Rd. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.