noted rule in Utah

2025The court noted that the rule “contemplates a cumbersome or dangerous exhibit” as “inappropriate for the jury room.” Id.

2024The court noted that this rule operates when the prior judgment has been “reversed or vacated,” whereas this v. Thurston, 2011 UT App 231, ¶ 12 , 258 P.3d 665 (noting that “although the district court has broad discretion in ruling on a rule 60(b) motion,” the ruling in question was infirm because the court had “ignore[d] undisputed affidavit evidence and actions” the plaintiff had taken and had “fail[ed] to consider the fact that the ultimate root of her problem . . . were factors beyond her control”).

2024The court noted that this rule operates when the prior judgment has been “reversed or vacated,” whereas this v. Thurston, 2011 UT App 231, ¶ 12 , 258 P.3d 665 (noting that “although the district court has broad discretion in ruling on a rule 60(b) motion,” the ruling in question was infirm because the court had “ignore[d] undisputed affidavit evidence and actions” the plaintiff had taken and had “fail[ed] to consider the fact that the ultimate root of her problem . . . were factors beyond her control”).

2023It also stated that this rule “does not apply 20210756-CA 12 2023 UT App 6 Dierl v. Birkin when there is some substantial likelihood that the deposition testimony was in error for reasons that appear in the deposition or the party-deponent is able to state in [an] affidavit an adequate explanation for the contradictory answer in [a] deposition.” Id.

2023It also stated that this rule “does not apply 20210756-CA 12 2023 UT App 6 Dierl v. Birkin when there is some substantial likelihood that the deposition testimony was in error for reasons that appear in the deposition or the party-deponent is able to state in [an] affidavit an adequate explanation for the contradictory answer in [a] deposition.” Id.

2019The court noted that the rule had been construed in civil cases, citing Anderson , and that "such construction in futuro is applicable to criminal cases." Pons , 396 P.2d at 408 -09 . ¶14 In this case, the trial judge lacked authority to proceed once the motion for disqualification was filed.

2003The court noted that under rule 4-501(2)(B) "all facts set forth in the mov-ant's statement of facts are 'deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the opposing party's statement!" Lovendahl, 2002 UT 130 at ¶ 50 , 63 P.3d 705 (quoting Utah R.

2003The court noted that under rule 4-501(2)(B) "all facts set forth in the mov-ant's statement of facts are 'deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the opposing party's statement!" Lovendahl, 2002 UT 130 at ¶ 50 , 63 P.3d 705 (quoting Utah R.

2002Mercantile Institution, 605 P.2d 314 (Utah 1979), rev’d on other grounds, 678 P.2d 298 (Utah 1984), this court noted an exception to the general rule, that “[w]here the party who' moves for the reduction, i.e. the defendant, institutes an appeal of the lower court proceedings, the plaintiff should be free to cross-appeal the amount of remittitur, notwithstanding the fact that he has previously accepted the reduced amount.” Id. at 326 .

2002Mercantile Institution, 605 P.2d 314 (Utah 1979), rev'd on other grounds, 678 P.2d 298 (Utah 1984), this court noted an exception to the general rule, that "[w]here the party who moves for the reduction, i.e. the defendant, institutes an appeal of the lower court proceedings, the plaintiff should be free to cross-appeal the amount of remittitur, notwithstanding the fact that he has previously accepted the reduced amount." Id. at 326 .

2002Mercantile Institution, 605 P.2d 314 (Utah 1979), rev'd on other grounds, 678 P.2d 298 (Utah 1984), this court noted an exception to the general rule, that "[w]here the party who moves for the reduction, i.e. the defendant, institutes an appeal of the lower court proceedings, the plaintiff should be free to cross-appeal the amount of remittitur, notwithstanding the fact that he has previously accepted the reduced amount." Id. at 326 .

2002Mercantile Institution, 605 P.2d 314 (Utah 1979), rev'd on other grounds, 678 P.2d 298 (Utah 1984), this court noted an exception to the general rule, that "[w]here the party who moves for the reduction, i.e. the defendant, institutes an appeal of the lower court proceedings, the plaintiff should be free to cross-appeal the amount of remittitur, notwithstanding the fact that he has previously accepted the reduced amount." Id. at 326 .

1997Id. at 795 .

1991Stating that the guilty plea was “a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the process,” the Court noted that a claim of constitutional defects in pre-plea proceedings would not alone entitle petitioner to collateral relief. 411 U.S. at 267 , 93 S.Ct. at 1608 .

1991Stating that the guilty plea was “a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the process,” the Court noted that a claim of constitutional defects in pre-plea proceedings would not alone entitle petitioner to collateral relief. 411 U.S. at 267 , 93 S.Ct. at 1608 .

1987In applying the test, the court emphasized that the trial judge’s discovery order only allowed limited disclosure of the investigatory files and not "wholesale disclosure.” Id. at 437-38 .

1983Noting that this would be a “different situation” if the seller had no other water than the 7½ shares of stock in question (“so that the reference to appurtenant water could not refer to any other water,” 7 Utah 2d at 76 , 318 P.2d at 634 ), this Court noted the presumption that the water represented by the 7½ shares did not pass to the grantee and sustained the finding that this presumption had not been rebutted.

1983Noting that this would be a “different situation” if the seller had no other water than the 7½ shares of stock in question (“so that the reference to appurtenant water could not refer to any other water,” 7 Utah 2d at 76 , 318 P.2d at 634 ), this Court noted the presumption that the water represented by the 7½ shares did not pass to the grantee and sustained the finding that this presumption had not been rebutted.