determined rule in Utah

2022“When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Utah Golf Ass’n v. City of N. Salt Lake, 2003 UT 38, ¶ 10 , 79 P.3d 919 . 20210346-CA 2 2022 UT App 87 Davis v. Wal-Mart was inapplicable because “the instant case is not one of a hazardous condition on the property.” ¶6 But the court agreed with Wal-Mart on the duty question.

2022“When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Utah Golf Ass’n v. City of N. Salt Lake, 2003 UT 38, ¶ 10 , 79 P.3d 919 . 20210346-CA 2 2022 UT App 87 Davis v. Wal-Mart was inapplicable because “the instant case is not one of a hazardous condition on the property.” ¶6 But the court agreed with Wal-Mart on the duty question.

2022“When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Utah Golf Ass’n v. City of N. Salt Lake, 2003 UT 38, ¶ 10 , 79 P.3d 919 . 20210346-CA 2 2022 UT App 87 Davis v. Wal-Mart was inapplicable because “the instant case is not one of a hazardous condition on the property.” ¶6 But the court agreed with Wal-Mart on the duty question.

2021Id. ¶25 We have not previously articulated the standard of care for skiers.

2019The trial court determined under rule 403 of 20180076-CA 16 2019 UT App 186 State v. Heath the Utah Rules of Evidence that the probative value of the Other Acts Evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues, particularly where limiting instructions were available. 8 See generally Utah R.

2019Indeed, in her initial disclosures, Stephanie broadly announced that both of the listed attorneys had general “knowledge concerning matters in the pleadings,” and stated in particular that one of them had specific knowledge about the damages caused to TTR, and the other had specific knowledge about “Ennenga’s breaches of duty to TTR and Stephanie.” Although the court’s initial discovery ruling regarding the scope of the waiver was unqualified, in its later ruling on Stephanie’s motion in limine the court determined that the waiver was limited, and did not necessarily apply during the trial pha

2019Evid. 403; State v. Balfour, 2018 UT App 79, ¶ 28 , 418 P.3d 79 (explaining that, in deciding whether to admit other acts evidence, the trial court must determine whether that evidence satisfies rule 403).

2019Evid. 403; State v. Balfour, 2018 UT App 79, ¶ 28 , 418 P.3d 79 (explaining that, in deciding whether to admit other acts evidence, the trial court must determine whether that evidence satisfies rule 403).

2017The court determined that the error was harmless because “the officer’s testimony [reciting the victim’s out-of-courts statements] was merely cumulative to that already testified to by the victim.” Id. at 450 .

2017“Nothing new or additional was said in the interview which the victim had not already testified to at trial.” Id. ¶ 32 Similarly, in this case, Officer added nothing new to Victim’s testimony of the assault in her hotel room.

2016This court determined that no presumption of prejudice arose, because the bailiff “did not mingle with the jurors or converse with them about the trial itself; nor did he interrupt their deliberations.” Id. at 909 .

1992Id.

1986Citing several studies which determined that a child needs "mothering" rather than a mother, id., the court determined that the presumption does not serve a compelling state interest.

1986Id., 350 N.Y.S.2d at 291 .