Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Menzies v. Galetkagreen2 sentences2025“Because of the equitable nature of the rule, a district court has broad discretion to rule on a 60(b) motion.” Id. ¶12 Reddy argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion. 2024And we note too that “courts are generally encouraged to be indulgent toward setting a judgment aside where there is reasonable justification or excuse for the [movant’s] failure to answer.” Silva v. Silva, 2018 UT App 210, ¶ 16 , 437 P.3d 593 (quotation simplified); see also Menzies, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 54 (“It is well established that 60(b) motions should be liberally granted because of the equitable nature of the rule. . . . | 4 | 7 |
Lund v. Browngreen2 sentences2020See Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 54 , 150 P.3d 480 (quotation simplified); see also Lund v. Brown, 2000 UT 75, ¶ 10 , 11 P.3d 277 (stating that “the nature of a default judgment and the equitable nature of rule 60 provide further limits” on a court’s discretion). 2020See Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 54 , 150 P.3d 480 (quotation simplified); see also Lund v. Brown, 2000 UT 75, ¶ 10 , 11 P.3d 277 (stating that “the nature of a default judgment and the equitable nature of rule 60 provide further limits” on a court’s discretion). | 1 | 3 |
Katz v. Piercegreen1 sentence2011While this is an appropriate inquiry, we believe the other unique facts and circumstances of this case, in addition to the equitable nature of rule 60(b), tip the scale in favor of reversal. 11 See generally Jones v. Layton/Okland, 2009 UT 39, ¶ 17 , 214 P.3d 859 (explaining the equitable nature of the exeusable neglect inquiry); Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 63 , 150 P.3d 480 (" '[A] case should, whenever possible, be decided on the merits'" (quoting Community Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir.2002))); Katz, 732 P.2d at 93 ("Where there is doubt about whether a [judgment | 1 | 1 |
Community Dental Services, Dba Smilecare Dental Group v. Stuart Tani, Ddsgreen1 sentence2011While this is an appropriate inquiry, we believe the other unique facts and circumstances of this case, in addition to the equitable nature of rule 60(b), tip the scale in favor of reversal. 11 See generally Jones v. Layton/Okland, 2009 UT 39, ¶ 17 , 214 P.3d 859 (explaining the equitable nature of the exeusable neglect inquiry); Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 63 , 150 P.3d 480 (" '[A] case should, whenever possible, be decided on the merits'" (quoting Community Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir.2002))); Katz, 732 P.2d at 93 ("Where there is doubt about whether a [judgment | 1 | 1 |
Leon Schwab v. Bullock's Inc., a Corporationgreen1 sentence2000See id.; see also Schavab v. Bullock's Inc., 508 F.2d 353, 355 (9th Cir.1974) (explaining limits to trial court's discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (which is virtually identical to *280 Utah's rule 60); 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. | 1 | 1 |
Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & Contractors Corp. v. First National Bankgreen1 sentence1993Hickenlooper, 59 P.2d at 1141 ; see also Peterman-Donnelly, 408 P.2d at 845 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Capital Stack UT v. Reddy
green
1 sentence2026“Because of the equitable nature of the rule, a district court has broad discretion to rule on a 60(b) motion.” Capital Stack UT LLC v. Reddy, 2025 UT App 103, ¶ 11 , 575 P.3d 1192 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 585 P.3d 43 (Utah 2026). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Silva v. Silva
neutral
2 sentences2024And we note too that “courts are generally encouraged to be indulgent toward setting a judgment aside where there is reasonable justification or excuse for the [movant’s] failure to answer.” Silva v. Silva, 2018 UT App 210, ¶ 16 , 437 P.3d 593 (quotation simplified); see also Menzies, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 54 (“It is well established that 60(b) motions should be liberally granted because of the equitable nature of the rule. . . . 2024And we note too that “courts are generally encouraged to be indulgent toward setting a judgment aside where there is reasonable justification or excuse for the [movant’s] failure to answer.” Silva v. Silva, 2018 UT App 210, ¶ 16 , 437 P.3d 593 (quotation simplified); see also Menzies, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 54 (“It is well established that 60(b) motions should be liberally granted because of the equitable nature of the rule. . . . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Jones v. Layton/Okland
green
2 sentences2011While this is an appropriate inquiry, we believe the other unique facts and circumstances of this case, in addition to the equitable nature of rule 60(b), tip the scale in favor of reversal. 11 See generally Jones v. Layton/Okland, 2009 UT 39, ¶ 17 , 214 P.3d 859 (explaining the equitable nature of the exeusable neglect inquiry); Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 63 , 150 P.3d 480 (" '[A] case should, whenever possible, be decided on the merits'" (quoting Community Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir.2002))); Katz, 732 P.2d at 93 ("Where there is doubt about whether a [judgment 2011While this is an appropriate inquiry, we believe the other unique facts and circumstances of this case, in addition to the equitable nature of rule 60(b), tip the scale in favor of reversal. 11 See generally Jones v. Layton/Okland, 2009 UT 39, ¶ 17 , 214 P.3d 859 (explaining the equitable nature of the exeusable neglect inquiry); Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 63 , 150 P.3d 480 (" '[A] case should, whenever possible, be decided on the merits'" (quoting Community Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir.2002))); Katz, 732 P.2d at 93 ("Where there is doubt about whether a [judgment | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Martin v. Hickenlooper
green
1 sentence1993Hickenlooper, 59 P.2d at 1141 ; see also Peterman-Donnelly, 408 P.2d at 845 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.