burden of demonstrating error in Utah

2025Corp., 820 P.2d 482, 489 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (“On appeal, the appellant has the burden of demonstrating an error was prejudicial—that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” (quotation simplified)), aff’d, 862 P.2d 1342 (Utah 1993). 20230483-CA 8 2025 UT App 43 Nelson v. Nelson not render the totality of the evidence insufficient.

2025Corp., 820 P.2d 482, 489 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (“On appeal, the appellant has the burden of demonstrating an error was prejudicial—that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” (quotation simplified)), aff’d, 862 P.2d 1342 (Utah 1993). 20230483-CA 8 2025 UT App 43 Nelson v. Nelson not render the totality of the evidence insufficient.

2025It is the role of the factfinder to examine and resolve such conflicts.”); Clarke v. Clarke, 2012 UT App 328, ¶ 28 , 292 P.3d 76 (“It is within the province of the trial court, as the finder of fact, to resolve issues of credibility.

2025It is the role of the factfinder to examine and resolve such conflicts.”); Clarke v. Clarke, 2012 UT App 328, ¶ 28 , 292 P.3d 76 (“It is within the province of the trial court, as the finder of fact, to resolve issues of credibility.

2020“An error will be harmless if it is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Macfarlane v. Career Service Review Office, 2019 UT App 133, ¶ 42 , 450 P.3d 87 (cleaned up). ¶26 Here, Ho has failed to satisfy her burden of demonstrating substantial prejudice.

2020Id. § 63G-4-403(4); see also Covey v. Covey, 2003 UT App 380, ¶ 21 , 80 P.3d 553 (explaining that the party seeking review “has the burden of demonstrating an error was prejudicial” (cleaned up)).

2018We conclude that Father’s rule 41 challenge fails because, as we explain below, he has not shown that he was harmed by the alleged error. ¶26 Rule 41 provides in relevant part that a plaintiff may voluntarily “dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer (…continued) demonstrate that, notwithstanding the juvenile court’s unique purpose and authority, requiring the case to proceed with termination hearings violated the separation of powers doctrine. 20170142-CA 12 2018 UT App 141 In re N.M. or a motion for summary judgm

1991On appeal, the appellant has the burden of demonstrating an error was prejudicial — that there is a “reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Verde, 770 P.2d at 120 .