13 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Swallow v. Kennardgreen2 sentences2012But "while the district court's discretion to grant relief under rule 60(b) for excusable neglect is broad, it is not unlimited." Jones, 2009 UT 39, ¶ 20 , 214 P.3d 859 (emphasis added). "[E]xcusable neglect requires some evidence of diligence in order to justify relief." Id.; see also Swallow v. Kennard, 2008 UT App 134, ¶ 23 , 183 P.3d 1052 ("The supreme court has previously defined `excusable neglect' as `the exercise of "due diligence" by a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances.'" (quoting Mini Spas, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, Dep't of Emp't Sec., 733 P.2d 130, 132 (Utah 19 2012But "while the district court's discretion to grant relief under rule 60(b) for excusable neglect is broad, it is not unlimited." Jones, 2009 UT 39, ¶ 20 , 214 P.3d 859 (emphasis added). "[E]xcusable neglect requires some evidence of diligence in order to justify relief." Id.; see also Swallow v. Kennard, 2008 UT App 134, ¶ 23 , 183 P.3d 1052 ("The supreme court has previously defined `excusable neglect' as `the exercise of "due diligence" by a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances.'" (quoting Mini Spas, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, Dep't of Emp't Sec., 733 P.2d 130, 132 (Utah 19 | 3 | 3 |
Mini Spas, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Utah, Department of Employment Securitygreen2 sentences2012But “while the district court’s discretion to grant relief under rule 60(b) for excusable neglect is broad, it is not unlimited.” Jones, 2009 UT 39, ¶ 20 (emphasis added). “[E]xcusable neglect requires some evidence of diligence in order to justify relief.” Id.; see also Swallow v. Kennard, 2008 UT App 134, ¶ 23 , 183 P.3d 1052 (“The supreme court has previously defined ‘excusable neglect’ as ‘the exercise of “due diligence” by a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances.’” (quoting Mini Spas, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 733 P.2d 130, 132 (Utah 1987) (per curiam 2012But "while the district court's discretion to grant relief under rule 60(b) for excusable neglect is broad, it is not unlimited." Jones, 2009 UT 39, ¶ 20 , 214 P.3d 859 (emphasis added). "[E]xcusable neglect requires some evidence of diligence in order to justify relief." Id.; see also Swallow v. Kennard, 2008 UT App 134, ¶ 23 , 183 P.3d 1052 ("The supreme court has previously defined `excusable neglect' as `the exercise of "due diligence" by a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances.'" (quoting Mini Spas, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, Dep't of Emp't Sec., 733 P.2d 130, 132 (Utah 19 | 3 | 3 |
Helgesen v. Inyangumiagreen2 sentences2013As we have previously emphasized, "discretion should be exercised in furtherance of justice and should incline towards granting relief ... to the end that the party may have a hearing." Helgesen v. Inyangumia, 636 P.2d 1079, 1081 (Utah 1981). 2013As we have previously emphasized, “discretion should be exercised in furtherance of justice and should incline towards granting relief . . . to the end that the party may have a hearing.” Helgesen v. Inyangumia, 636 P.2d 1079, 1081 (Utah 1981). | 2 | 2 |
Menzies v. Galetkagreen2 sentences2020“A district court has broad discretion to rule on a motion to set aside a default judgment under rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.” Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 54 , 150 P.3d 480 . 2020“A district court has broad discretion to rule on a motion to set aside a default judgment under rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.” Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 54 , 150 P.3d 480 . | 1 | 9 |
Jones v. Layton/Oklandgreen2 sentences2012But "while the district court's discretion to grant relief under rule 60(b) for excusable neglect is broad, it is not unlimited." Jones, 2009 UT 39, ¶ 20 , 214 P.3d 859 (emphasis added). "[E]xcusable neglect requires some evidence of diligence in order to justify relief." Id.; see also Swallow v. Kennard, 2008 UT App 134, ¶ 23 , 183 P.3d 1052 ("The supreme court has previously defined `excusable neglect' as `the exercise of "due diligence" by a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances.'" (quoting Mini Spas, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, Dep't of Emp't Sec., 733 P.2d 130, 132 (Utah 19 2012But "while the district court's discretion to grant relief under rule 60(b) for excusable neglect is broad, it is not unlimited." Jones, 2009 UT 39, ¶ 20 , 214 P.3d 859 (emphasis added). "[E]xcusable neglect requires some evidence of diligence in order to justify relief." Id.; see also Swallow v. Kennard, 2008 UT App 134, ¶ 23 , 183 P.3d 1052 ("The supreme court has previously defined `excusable neglect' as `the exercise of "due diligence" by a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances.'" (quoting Mini Spas, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, Dep't of Emp't Sec., 733 P.2d 130, 132 (Utah 19 | 1 | 3 |
Lund v. Browngreen2 sentences2006See Lund v. Brown, 2000 UT 75, ¶ 9 , 11 P.3d 277 ; Russell v. Martell, 681 P.2d 1193, 1194 (Utah 1984); State Dep't of Soc. 2006See Lund v. Brown, 2000 UT 75, ¶ 9 , 11 P.3d 277 ; Russell v. Martell, 681 P.2d 1193, 1194 (Utah 1984); State Dep't of Soc. | 1 | 1 |
Russell v. Martellgreen2 sentences2006See Lund v. Brown, 2000 UT 75, ¶ 9 , 11 P.3d 277 ; Russell v. Martell, 681 P.2d 1193, 1194 (Utah 1984); State Dep't of Soc. 2006See Lund v. Brown, 2000 UT 75, ¶ 9 , 11 P.3d 277 ; Russell v. Martell, 681 P.2d 1193, 1194 (Utah 1984); State Dep't of Soc. | 1 | 1 |
Erickson v. Schenkers International Forwarders, Inc.green1 sentence2003See Erickson, 882 P.2d at 1149 (determining that there was a "restoration of the status quo ante” when two of the three requirements were satisfied under the “excusable neglect” standard for setting aside a default judgment under rule 60 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rojas v. Montoya
green
1 sentence2020Therefore, Swanson’s attempt to have judgment against her set aside on the ground of excusable neglect rises and falls with the actions of Montoya. 20180497-CA 16 2020 UT App 153 Rojas v. Montoya district court has broad discretion to rule on a motion to set aside a default judgment under rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.”). 13 B. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Migliore v. Livingston Financial, LLC
green
2 sentences2020“But the district court has no discretion with respect to a void judgment because the determination that a judgment is void implicates the court’s jurisdiction.” Migliore v. Livingston Fin., LLC, 2015 UT 9, ¶ 25 , 347 P.3d 394 . 2020“But the district court has no discretion with respect to a void judgment because the determination that a judgment is void implicates the court’s jurisdiction.” Migliore v. Livingston Fin., LLC, 2015 UT 9, ¶ 25 , 347 P.3d 394 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership
green
2 sentences2006Id. at 397 , 113 S.Ct. 1489 . ¶ 77 The situation is vastly different, however, when an attorney willfully disregards a client's interests, acts in a grossly negligent fashion, or renders ineffective assistance of counsel. 2006Id. at 397 , 113 S.Ct. 1489 . ¶ 77 The situation is vastly different, however, when an attorney willfully disregards a client's interests, acts in a grossly negligent fashion, or renders ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.