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.
8 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Department of Community Affairs v. Utah Merit System Councilgreen1 sentence1998Council, 614 P.2d 1259, 1262 (Utah 1980)). | 1 | 1 |
D.B. v. Division of Occupational & Professional Licensing of the Department of Business Regulationgreen1 sentence1998Moreover, it appears from the record that any shortfall in cross-examination time was partially due to Sierra Club’s failure to budget its time. “ ‘All parties [to an agency hearing] ... must be given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, to inspect documents and to offer evidence in explanation or rebuttal.’ ” D.B., 779 P.2d at 1146 (emphasis added) (quoting State Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Utah Merit Sys. | 1 | 1 |
Sanders Brine Shrimp v. Audit Division of Utah State Tax Commissiongreen1 sentence1995Sanders Brine Shrimp v. Tax Comm’n, 846 P.2d 1304, 1306 (Utah 1993) (holding that a rule out of harmony with its governing statute is invalid). | 1 | 1 |
McKnight v. State Land Boardgreen2 sentences1994Crowther, 762 P.2d at 1122 ; see also McKnight v. State Land Bd., 14 Utah 2d 238, 244 , 381 P.2d 726, 730 (1963) (“[R]ules and regulations of an administrative agency must conform to rather than be contrary and inconsistent with statutory law.”). 1994Crowther, 762 P.2d at 1122 ; see also McKnight v. State Land Bd., 14 Utah 2d 238, 244 , 381 P.2d 726, 730 (1963) (“[R]ules and regulations of an administrative agency must conform to rather than be contrary and inconsistent with statutory law.”). | 1 | 1 |
Crowther v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.green2 sentences1994See Crowther, 762 P.2d at 1122 . 4 Section 15-1-1 would control, in any event, because it is the most specific statute. 1994Crowther, 762 P.2d at 1122 ; see also McKnight v. State Land Bd., 14 Utah 2d 238, 244 , 381 P.2d 726, 730 (1963) (“[R]ules and regulations of an administrative agency must conform to rather than be contrary and inconsistent with statutory law.”). | 1 | 1 |
Morton International, Inc. v. Auditing Division of the Utah State Tax Commissiongreen2 sentences1991The supreme court defined harmless error as being an error “sufficiently inconsequential that ... there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Id. 1991The Utah Supreme Court recently indicated in Morton International, Inc. v. Utah State Tax Commission, 814 P.2d 581, 584-585 (Utah 1991), that the substantial prejudice language in section 63-46b-16(4) prevents an appellate court from granting relief if an agency error is harmless. | 1 | 1 |
Kitsap-Mason Dairymen's Ass'n v. Washington State Tax Commissiongreen2 sentences1988People v. Wright, 30 Cal.3d 705 , 639 P.2d 267, 271 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 196 (1982); Kitsap-Mason Dairymen’s Assoc. v. Washington State Tax Comm’n, 77 Wash.2d 812 , 467 P.2d 312, 315 (1970). 1988People v. Wright, 30 Cal.3d 705 , 639 P.2d 267, 271 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 196 (1982); Kitsap-Mason Dairymen’s Assoc. v. Washington State Tax Comm’n, 77 Wash.2d 812 , 467 P.2d 312, 315 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burdick v. Horner Townsend & Kent, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024The court found that Sampson could not satisfy the elements of a discrimination claim under the UCRA because he “point[ed] to no actual authority [HBB] gave to [Shift Supervisor] to conduct herself in the manner alleged.” Actual authority is an agency doctrine that “relates to a principal’s manifestations to the agent.” Burdick v. Horner Townsend & Kent, Inc., 2015 UT 8, ¶ 21 , 345 P.3d 531 . 2024The court found that Sampson could not satisfy the elements of a discrimination claim under the UCRA because he “point[ed] to no actual authority [HBB] gave to [Shift Supervisor] to conduct herself in the manner alleged.” Actual authority is an agency doctrine that “relates to a principal’s manifestations to the agent.” Burdick v. Horner Townsend & Kent, Inc., 2015 UT 8, ¶ 21 , 345 P.3d 531 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Birkner v. Salt Lake County
green
2 sentences2018An employee's action is within the scope of employment under Birkner if it is (1) "of the general kind the employee is employed to perform" and (2) "motivated, at least in part, by the purpose of serving the employer's interest." 4 Birkner , 771 P.2d at 1057 . 2018And the analysis is accordingly informed by our case law defining the agency principle of "scope of employment"-in particular the standard set forth in Birkner v. Salt Lake County , 771 P.2d 1053 , 1057-58 (Utah 1989), as modified in M.J. v. Wisan , 2016 UT 13 , ¶ 55, 371 P.3d 21 . 3 ¶ 36 The district court's approach was in line with the standard set forth in Birkner . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
M.J. v. Wisan
green
2 sentences2018And the analysis is accordingly informed by our case law defining the agency principle of "scope of employment"-in particular the standard set forth in Birkner v. Salt Lake County , 771 P.2d 1053 , 1057-58 (Utah 1989), as modified in M.J. v. Wisan , 2016 UT 13 , ¶ 55, 371 P.3d 21 . 3 ¶ 36 The district court's approach was in line with the standard set forth in Birkner . 2018And the analysis is accordingly informed by our case law defining the agency principle of "scope of employment"-in particular the standard set forth in Birkner v. Salt Lake County , 771 P.2d 1053 , 1057-58 (Utah 1989), as modified in M.J. v. Wisan , 2016 UT 13 , ¶ 55, 371 P.3d 21 . 3 ¶ 36 The district court's approach was in line with the standard set forth in Birkner . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bourgeous v. Department of Commerce, Division of Occupational & Professional Licensing
green
2 sentences2010In Bourgeons the court of appeals must have concluded that the underlying proceeding was informal because it remanded to the district court for a trial de novo, but there is no discussion about whether the formality designation came via rule or by analysis of the substance of the proceeding. 1999 UT App 146, ¶ 14 , 981 P.2d 414 . 2010In Bourgeons the court of appeals must have concluded that the underlying proceeding was informal because it remanded to the district court for a trial de novo, but there is no discussion about whether the formality designation came via rule or by analysis of the substance of the proceeding. 1999 UT App 146, ¶ 14 , 981 P.2d 414 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Alumbaugh v. White
green
1 sentence2010Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-202. ¶ 16 In Alumbaugh , the court of appeals specifically refused to apply an agency rule that designated all adjudicative proceedings as formal because a summary dismissal could not possibly constitute a formal proceeding. 800 P.2d at 825 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Wright
green
2 sentences1988People v. Wright, 30 Cal.3d 705 , 639 P.2d 267, 271 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 196 (1982); Kitsap-Mason Dairymen’s Assoc. v. Washington State Tax Comm’n, 77 Wash.2d 812 , 467 P.2d 312, 315 (1970). 1988People v. Wright, 30 Cal.3d 705 , 639 P.2d 267, 271 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 196 (1982); Kitsap-Mason Dairymen’s Assoc. v. Washington State Tax Comm’n, 77 Wash.2d 812 , 467 P.2d 312, 315 (1970). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.