Nelson claim in Utah

2015Hutchings, 2012 UT 50, ¶ 28 , 285 P.3d 1183 . *1047 CONCLUSION 151 Mr. Nelson has not proven that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in any aspect of his trial.

2015Hutchings, 2012 UT 50, ¶ 28 , 285 P.3d 1183 . *1047 CONCLUSION 151 Mr. Nelson has not proven that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in any aspect of his trial.

2015Jensen v. Intermountain Power Agency, 1999 UT 10, ¶ 16 , 977 P.2d 474 . $48 We also reject Mr. Nelson's claim that he received ineffective assistance on the basis that instruction 83 improperly required unanimity on only one of the theories of murder.

2015Jensen v. Intermountain Power Agency, 1999 UT 10, ¶ 16 , 977 P.2d 474 . $48 We also reject Mr. Nelson's claim that he received ineffective assistance on the basis that instruction 83 improperly required unanimity on only one of the theories of murder.

1966All of the business houses except one owned by the Nelson defendants and two owned by appellant had a private, reserved, right of way to their respective properties. ’The mere use by the public of a private alley in common with the owners of the alley does not show a dedication thereof to public use, or vast any right in the public to the way.’ MacCorkle v. City of Charleston, 105 W.Va. 395 , 142 S.E. 841 , 58 A.L.R. 231 and Annotation.” (Emphasis added.) The evidence which the trial judge recited in his findings of fact must be analyzed to determine if it were of such' a nature as to invoke t

1966All of the business houses except one owned by the Nelson defendants and two owned by appellant had a private, reserved, right of way to their respective properties. ’The mere use by the public of a private alley in common with the owners of the alley does not show a dedication thereof to public use, or vast any right in the public to the way.’ MacCorkle v. City of Charleston, 105 W.Va. 395 , 142 S.E. 841 , 58 A.L.R. 231 and Annotation.” (Emphasis added.) The evidence which the trial judge recited in his findings of fact must be analyzed to determine if it were of such' a nature as to invoke t

2021Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ¶10 Nelson first claims that Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the admission of the portion of the police interview in which Nelson told Detective that what 20190495-CA 5 2021 UT App 26 State v. Nelson happened with Victim was the “same thing” as another incident in which Nelson was involved. ¶11 To understand Nelson’s claim, it is helpful to understand the context of the “same thing” statement.

2015ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW T8 Nelson argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation and- application of rule 26(c)(5) 2 "The trial court's interpreta *850 tion of the rules of civil procedure presents a question of law which we review for correctness.” Nunley v. Westates Casing Servs., Inc., 1999 UT 100, ¶ 42 , 989 P.2d 1077 .

2015ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW T8 Nelson argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation and- application of rule 26(c)(5) 2 "The trial court's interpreta *850 tion of the rules of civil procedure presents a question of law which we review for correctness.” Nunley v. Westates Casing Servs., Inc., 1999 UT 100, ¶ 42 , 989 P.2d 1077 .

2015Failure to show either part of the Strickland test is fatal to a claim of ineffective assistance, and here Mr. Nelson’s claim fails both. 12 Mr. Nelson owned guns and had “fired upwards of a thousand rounds” out at the ranch, including “inside and outside the trailer.” 16 Cite as: 2015 UT 62 Opinion of the Court C.

2014"Whether a claim can withstand a motion to dismiss is a question of law, and we therefore review the trial court's underlying determination regarding the legal sufficiency of the claim for correctness." Shah v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc., 2013 UT App 261, ¶ 6 , 314 P.3d 1079 . 113 Finally, Nelson contends that the court "abused its discretion by denying [her] rule 56(f) motion for additional time to complete discovery." We review the decision to deny a rule 56(f) motion for "an abuse of discretion," and we will not disturb the district court's ruling unless "the denial of the motion exceed

2014"Whether a claim can withstand a motion to dismiss is a question of law, and we therefore review the trial court's underlying determination regarding the legal sufficiency of the claim for correctness." Shah v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc., 2013 UT App 261, ¶ 6 , 314 P.3d 1079 . 113 Finally, Nelson contends that the court "abused its discretion by denying [her] rule 56(f) motion for additional time to complete discovery." We review the decision to deny a rule 56(f) motion for "an abuse of discretion," and we will not disturb the district court's ruling unless "the denial of the motion exceed

2014"Whether a claim can withstand a motion to dismiss is a question of law, and we therefore review the trial court's underlying determination regarding the legal sufficiency of the claim for correctness." Shah v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc., 2013 UT App 261, ¶ 6 , 314 P.3d 1079 . 113 Finally, Nelson contends that the court "abused its discretion by denying [her] rule 56(f) motion for additional time to complete discovery." We review the decision to deny a rule 56(f) motion for "an abuse of discretion," and we will not disturb the district court's ruling unless "the denial of the motion exceed

2014"Whether a claim can withstand a motion to dismiss is a question of law, and we therefore review the trial court's underlying determination regarding the legal sufficiency of the claim for correctness." Shah v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc., 2013 UT App 261, ¶ 6 , 314 P.3d 1079 . 113 Finally, Nelson contends that the court "abused its discretion by denying [her] rule 56(f) motion for additional time to complete discovery." We review the decision to deny a rule 56(f) motion for "an abuse of discretion," and we will not disturb the district court's ruling unless "the denial of the motion exceed

2014Cf. Bennett v. Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, 2003 UT 9, ¶¶ 68-69 , 70 P.3d 17 (concluding that allegations that a law firm engaged in conduct "to take advance action to prevent" a client from "prosecuting any action for damages" against the firm were insufficient to plead a prima facie intentional infliction of emotional distress claim).

2014Cf. Bennett v. Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, 2003 UT 9, ¶¶ 68-69 , 70 P.3d 17 (concluding that allegations that a law firm engaged in conduct "to take advance action to prevent" a client from "prosecuting any action for damages" against the firm were insufficient to plead a prima facie intentional infliction of emotional distress claim).

2013Nelson v. Orem City, 2012 UT App 147 , ¶ 9 n.3, 278 P.3d 1089 . 3 Officer Nelson cited multiple instances of inconsistent treatment to the Board but has since dropped all others and focused only on Officer Healy. 4 At the hearing before the Board, OCPD offered evidence that Officer Healy’s suspension was the most severe action it could have imposed, short of termination. 5 NELSON v. OREM CITY Opinion of the Court because the juvenile had made a flippant remark.

2013Nelson v. Orem City, 2012 UT App 147 , ¶ 9 n.3, 278 P.3d 1089 . 3 Officer Nelson cited multiple instances of inconsistent treatment to the Board but has since dropped all others and focused only on Officer Healy. 4 At the hearing before the Board, OCPD offered evidence that Officer Healy’s suspension was the most severe action it could have imposed, short of termination. 5 NELSON v. OREM CITY Opinion of the Court because the juvenile had made a flippant remark.