13 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maverik Country Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2019Special Service Dist ., 2014 UT 5 , ¶ 9, 322 P.3d 1163 (quoting Utah Code section 63G-4-401(2) ). ¶39 "The basic purpose underlying the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence-to make a factual record, to apply its expertise, and to correct its own errors so as to moot judicial controversies." Maverik Country Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n of Utah , 860 P.2d 944 , 947 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (quotation simplified). 1998“The basic purpose underlying the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies ⅛ to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence — to make a factual record, to apply its expertise, and to correct its own error so as to moot judicial controversies.’ ” Maverik Country Stores, 860 P.2d at 947 (quoting Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U.S. 34, 37 , 92 S.Ct. 815, 818 , 31 L.Ed.2d 17 (1972)); accord State Farm Mut. | 2 | 5 |
Parisi v. Davidsongreen2 sentences1998“The basic purpose underlying the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies ⅛ to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence — to make a factual record, to apply its expertise, and to correct its own error so as to moot judicial controversies.’ ” Maverik Country Stores, 860 P.2d at 947 (quoting Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U.S. 34, 37 , 92 S.Ct. 815, 818 , 31 L.Ed.2d 17 (1972)); accord State Farm Mut. 1998“The basic purpose underlying the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies ⅛ to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence — to make a factual record, to apply its expertise, and to correct its own error so as to moot judicial controversies.’ ” Maverik Country Stores, 860 P.2d at 947 (quoting Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U.S. 34, 37 , 92 S.Ct. 815, 818 , 31 L.Ed.2d 17 (1972)); accord State Farm Mut. | 1 | 4 |
Osmond Senior Living v. Dept. of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2019See Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. Taylor , 15 Utah 2d 234 , 390 P.2d 592 , 595 (Utah 1964) (determining that the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement "only applies where the discretion of an administrative officer or body, acting ... pursuant to statutory directive, is in question"). ¶38 "District courts have original jurisdiction in all matters except as limited by statute." Osmond Senior Living LLC v. Utah Dep't of Public Safety , 2018 UT App 218 , ¶ 11, 437 P.3d 621 (quotation simplified). 2019See Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. Taylor , 15 Utah 2d 234 , 390 P.2d 592 , 595 (Utah 1964) (determining that the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement "only applies where the discretion of an administrative officer or body, acting ... pursuant to statutory directive, is in question"). ¶38 "District courts have original jurisdiction in all matters except as limited by statute." Osmond Senior Living LLC v. Utah Dep't of Public Safety , 2018 UT App 218 , ¶ 11, 437 P.3d 621 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 1 |
Walker Bank & Trust Company v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2019See Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. Taylor , 15 Utah 2d 234 , 390 P.2d 592 , 595 (Utah 1964) (determining that the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement "only applies where the discretion of an administrative officer or body, acting ... pursuant to statutory directive, is in question"). ¶38 "District courts have original jurisdiction in all matters except as limited by statute." Osmond Senior Living LLC v. Utah Dep't of Public Safety , 2018 UT App 218 , ¶ 11, 437 P.3d 621 (quotation simplified). 2019See Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. Taylor , 15 Utah 2d 234 , 390 P.2d 592 , 595 (Utah 1964) (determining that the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement "only applies where the discretion of an administrative officer or body, acting ... pursuant to statutory directive, is in question"). ¶38 "District courts have original jurisdiction in all matters except as limited by statute." Osmond Senior Living LLC v. Utah Dep't of Public Safety , 2018 UT App 218 , ¶ 11, 437 P.3d 621 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. Cannongreen2 sentences2013See Utax Cope § 63G-4-401 to -405. 34 . 2008 UT 19, ¶ 18 , 179 P.3d 799 . 35 . 2013See Utax Cope § 63G-4-401 to -405. 34 . 2008 UT 19, ¶ 18 , 179 P.3d 799 . 35 . | 1 | 1 |
Mountain Fuel Supply Co. v. Public Service Commissiongreen1 sentence1996Comm’n, 861 P.2d 414, 423-24 (Utah 1993) (recognizing that the correction principle underpins the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies); see also Maverik Country Stores v. Industrial Comm’n, 860 P.2d 944, 947 (Utah App.1993) (“The basic purpose underlying the doctrine ... ‘is to *771 allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence — to make a factual record, to apply its expertise, and to correct its own errors so as to moot judicial controversies.’” (quoting Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U.S. 34, 37 , 92 S.Ct. 815, 818 , 31 L.Ed.2d 17 (1972))). | 1 | 1 |
Pacific Intermountain Express Co. v. State Tax Commissiongreen1 sentence1993The basic purpose underlying the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies “is to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence — to make a factual record, to apply its expertise, and to correct its own errors so as to moot judicial controversies.” Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U.S. 34, 37 , 92 S.Ct. 815, 818 , 31 L.Ed.2d 17 (1972); see also Pacific Intermountain Express Co. v. Tax Comm’n, 316 P.2d 549, 551 (Utah 1957) (recognizing correction rationale). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nebeker v. Utah State Tax Commission
green
2 sentences2011And so, "[a]s a general rule, parties must exhaust applicable administrative remedies as a prerequisite to seeking judicial review." Nebeker v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 2001 UT 74, ¶ 14 , 34 P.3d 180 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2011And so, "[a]s a general rule, parties must exhaust applicable administrative remedies as a prerequisite to seeking judicial review." Nebeker v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 2001 UT 74, ¶ 14 , 34 P.3d 180 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 3 | 2011–2011 |
Western Water, LLC v. Olds
green
2 sentences2011"The basic purpose underlying the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competenceto make a factual record, to apply its *625 expertise, and to correct its own errors so as to moot judicial controversies." Western Water, 2008 UT 18, ¶ 18 , 184 P.3d 578 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2011"The basic purpose underlying the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competenceto make a factual record, to apply its *625 expertise, and to correct its own errors so as to moot judicial controversies." Western Water, 2008 UT 18, ¶ 18 , 184 P.3d 578 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 3 | 2011–2011 |
Frito-Lay v. Utah Labor Commission
green
2 sentences2013But because Mr. Record was just beginning to avail himself of those remedies at the time the district court attempted to issue the stay, the district court acted without jurisdiction, rendering its order void. 28 UTAH CODE § 34A-5-107(15) (emphasis added). 29 See id. §§ 34A-5-104(1), 107(1). 30See id. § 63G-4-102(1) (stating that UAPA applies to “every agency of the state” and “judicial review” of agency action). 31 Id. § 63G-4-401(2). 32 Frito-Lay v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 2009 UT 71, ¶ 30 , 222 P.3d 55 (“The exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement mandates that the litigant follow all 2013But because Mr. Record was just beginning to avail himself of those remedies at the time the district court attempted to issue the stay, the district court acted without jurisdiction, rendering its order void. 28 UTAH CODE § 34A-5-107(15) (emphasis added). 29 See id. §§ 34A-5-104(1), 107(1). 30See id. § 63G-4-102(1) (stating that UAPA applies to “every agency of the state” and “judicial review” of agency action). 31 Id. § 63G-4-401(2). 32 Frito-Lay v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 2009 UT 71, ¶ 30 , 222 P.3d 55 (“The exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement mandates that the litigant follow all | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Housing Authority, County of Salt Lake v. Snyder
green
2 sentences2020Auth. of Cty. of Salt Lake v. Snyder, 2002 UT 28, ¶ 11 , 44 P.3d 724 (citation omitted). 2020Auth. of Cty. of Salt Lake v. Snyder, 2002 UT 28, ¶ 11 , 44 P.3d 724 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ramsay v. Kane County Human Resource Special Service District
green
2 sentences2019Special Service Dist ., 2014 UT 5 , ¶ 9, 322 P.3d 1163 (quoting Utah Code section 63G-4-401(2) ). ¶39 "The basic purpose underlying the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence-to make a factual record, to apply its expertise, and to correct its own errors so as to moot judicial controversies." Maverik Country Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n of Utah , 860 P.2d 944 , 947 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (quotation simplified). 2019Special Service Dist ., 2014 UT 5 , ¶ 9, 322 P.3d 1163 (quoting Utah Code section 63G-4-401(2) ). ¶39 "The basic purpose underlying the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence-to make a factual record, to apply its expertise, and to correct its own errors so as to moot judicial controversies." Maverik Country Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n of Utah , 860 P.2d 944 , 947 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Colorado Water Quality Control Commission v. Town of Frederick
green
1 sentence1994It is well settled under this doctrine that persons aggrieved by decisions of administrative agencies “may not, by refusing or neglecting to submit issues of fact to such agencies, by-pass them, and call upon the courts to determine ... matters properly determinable originally by such agencies.” Id. (quoting People v. Keith Ry. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.