facts consistent standard in Utah

2021“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard,” and “we present conflicting evidence to the extent necessary to clarify the issues raised on appeal.” Kidd v. Kidd, 2014 UT App 26 , ¶ 2 n.1, 321 P.3d 200 (cleaned up). 20190750-CA 2 2021 UT App 111 Nakkina v. Mahanthi in India but otherwise remained in the United States for his employment. ¶5 Nakkina returned to the United States with the children in 2012 and joined Mahanthi who had moved back to Utah.

2021“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard,” and “we present conflicting evidence to the extent necessary to clarify the issues raised on appeal.” Kidd v. Kidd, 2014 UT App 26 , ¶ 2 n.1, 321 P.3d 200 (cleaned up). 20190750-CA 2 2021 UT App 111 Nakkina v. Mahanthi in India but otherwise remained in the United States for his employment. ¶5 Nakkina returned to the United States with the children in 2012 and joined Mahanthi who had moved back to Utah.

2019Corp. v. Mackelprang, 2002 UT App 220, ¶ 2 , 51 P.3d 45 (quotation simplified). 20180182-CA 2 2019 UT App 165 Coleman v. Stuart his wife Debbie held title to the Lindon Property as joint tenants.

2019Corp. v. Mackelprang, 2002 UT App 220, ¶ 2 , 51 P.3d 45 (quotation simplified). 20180182-CA 2 2019 UT App 165 Coleman v. Stuart his wife Debbie held title to the Lindon Property as joint tenants.

2015"On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard." State v. Nichols, 2003 UT App 287 , ¶ 2 n. 1, 76 P.3d 1173 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2 .

2015"On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard." State v. Nichols, 2003 UT App 287 , ¶ 2 n. 1, 76 P.3d 1173 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2 .

2019"On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the [district] court's findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard." Lake Philgas Service v. Valley Bank & Trust Co. , 845 P.2d 951 , 953 n.1 (Utah Ct. App. 1993).

2018"On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard." Lake Philgas Service v. Valley Bank & Trust Co. , 845 P.2d 951 , 953 n.1 (Utah Ct. App. 1993).

2015Corp. v. Mattson, 943 P.2d 247 , 250 n. 1 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2015Corp. v. Mattson, 943 P.2d 247 , 250 n. 1 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2 .

2024“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” Chesley v. Chesley, 2017 UT App 127 , ¶ 2 n.2, 402 P.3d 65 (quotation simplified). 20210637-CA 2 2024 UT App 54 Tilleman v. Tilleman parent” Child. 2 The motion alleged that Father “has exhibited intense anger toward [Mother] and has engaged in mental and emotional abuse,” that “such anger has been exhibited toward” Child, and that he “may be suffering from mental health conditions.” ¶6 Father opposed Mother’s rule 35 motion

2024“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” Chesley v. Chesley, 2017 UT App 127 , ¶ 2 n.2, 402 P.3d 65 (quotation simplified). 20210637-CA 2 2024 UT App 54 Tilleman v. Tilleman parent” Child. 2 The motion alleged that Father “has exhibited intense anger toward [Mother] and has engaged in mental and emotional abuse,” that “such anger has been exhibited toward” Child, and that he “may be suffering from mental health conditions.” ¶6 Father opposed Mother’s rule 35 motion

2022“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the district court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard and present conflicting evidence to the extent necessary to clarify the issues raised on appeal.” Burggraaf v. Burggraaf, 2019 UT App 195, n.2 , 455 P.3d 1071 (quotation simplified). 3.

2022“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the district court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard and present conflicting evidence to the extent necessary to clarify the issues raised on appeal.” Burggraaf v. Burggraaf, 2019 UT App 195, n.2 , 455 P.3d 1071 (quotation simplified). 3.

2022“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard and only present conflicting evidence to the extent necessary to clarify the issues raised on appeal.” Linebaugh v. Gibson, 2020 UT App 108, n.5 , 471 P.3d 835 (quotation simplified). 20210122-CA 2 2022 UT App 64 Huck v. Ken’s House Huck Property and its neighbors to the west was approximately two-and-a-half feet farther east than where the fence remnants were located.

2022“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard and only present conflicting evidence to the extent necessary to clarify the issues raised on appeal.” Linebaugh v. Gibson, 2020 UT App 108, n.5 , 471 P.3d 835 (quotation simplified). 20210122-CA 2 2022 UT App 64 Huck v. Ken’s House Huck Property and its neighbors to the west was approximately two-and-a-half feet farther east than where the fence remnants were located.

2016"On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard." Johnson v. Higley, 1999 UT App 278, 12 , 989 P.2d 61 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 3 .

2016"On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard." Johnson v. Higley, 1999 UT App 278, 12 , 989 P.2d 61 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 3 .

2025“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard and only present conflicting evidence to the extent necessary to clarify the issues raised on appeal.” Huck v. Ken’s House LLC, 2022 UT App 64 , n.1, 511 P.3d 1220 (quotation simplified). 20230590-CA 2 2025 UT App 3 Rokovitz v. Manley Construction ¶5 This price was apparently not within the Rokovitzes’ budget, so Manley and the Rokovitzes engaged in negotiations to try to bring the price down.

2022“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard and only present conflicting evidence to the extent necessary to clarify the issues raised on appeal.” Linebaugh v. Gibson, 2020 UT App 108, n.5 , 471 P.3d 835 (quotation simplified). 20210122-CA 2 2022 UT App 64 Huck v. Ken’s House Huck Property and its neighbors to the west was approximately two-and-a-half feet farther east than where the fence remnants were located.

2023“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” Grimm v. DxNA LLC, 2018 UT App 115 , ¶ 2 n.1, 427 P.3d 571 (cleaned up). 3.

2023“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” Grimm v. DxNA LLC, 2018 UT App 115 , ¶ 2 n.1, 427 P.3d 571 (cleaned up). 3.

2022“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard, and we present conflicting evidence to the extent necessary to clarify the issues raised on appeal.” Nakkina v. Mahanthi, 2021 UT App 111, n.2 , 496 P.3d 1173 (cleaned up). 20200193-CA 2 2022 UT App 27 Erickson v. Erickson a temporary restraining order, asking the court to appoint a receiver for Meds.

2022“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard, and we present conflicting evidence to the extent necessary to clarify the issues raised on appeal.” Nakkina v. Mahanthi, 2021 UT App 111, n.2 , 496 P.3d 1173 (cleaned up). 20200193-CA 2 2022 UT App 27 Erickson v. Erickson a temporary restraining order, asking the court to appoint a receiver for Meds.

2017“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” State v. Davie, 2011 UT App 380 , ¶ 2 n.1, 264 P.3d 770 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 20150591-CA 2 2017 UT App 1 State v. Isaacson concealed carry permit law and also relating to carrying a weapon.” The trial court reserved ruling on the issue. ¶5 One of the responding police officers testified for the State, and a body-camera video was introduced and admitted into evidence.

2017“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” State v. Davie, 2011 UT App 380 , ¶ 2 n.1, 264 P.3d 770 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 20150591-CA 2 2017 UT App 1 State v. Isaacson concealed carry permit law and also relating to carrying a weapon.” The trial court reserved ruling on the issue. ¶5 One of the responding police officers testified for the State, and a body-camera video was introduced and admitted into evidence.

2025“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard and only present conflicting evidence to the extent necessary to clarify the issues raised on appeal.” Huck v. Ken’s House LLC, 2022 UT App 64 , n.1, 511 P.3d 1220 (quotation simplified). 20230590-CA 2 2025 UT App 3 Rokovitz v. Manley Construction ¶5 This price was apparently not within the Rokovitzes’ budget, so Manley and the Rokovitzes engaged in negotiations to try to bring the price down.

2024“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” Chesley v. Chesley, 2017 UT App 127 , ¶ 2 n.2, 402 P.3d 65 (quotation simplified). 20210871-CA 2 2024 UT App 156 Godfrey v. Godfrey ¶5 The parties were able to reach a settlement concerning their three properties prior to trial: Amanda would retain the St.

2024We recite the facts consistent with that standard.” State v. Schmidt, 2015 UT 65, ¶ 4 , 356 P.3d 1204 (cleaned up). 2 Cite as: 2024 UT 13 Opinion of the Court old, had “r[u]n away from home,” and wanted to “go to Cali[fornia].” She asked Smith if he would “give [her] $200 for food and cash” so she could “pay someone for a ride.” In exchange, she promised she would “do whatever [he] want[ed].” Smith, who had opened the conversation by sending Emily photos of his penis, responded with hesitation.

2024“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” Chesley v. Chesley, 2017 UT App 127 , ¶ 2 n.2, 402 P.3d 65 (quotation simplified). 20210637-CA 2 2024 UT App 54 Tilleman v. Tilleman parent” Child. 2 The motion alleged that Father “has exhibited intense anger toward [Mother] and has engaged in mental and emotional abuse,” that “such anger has been exhibited toward” Child, and that he “may be suffering from mental health conditions.” ¶6 Father opposed Mother’s rule 35 motion

2024We recite the facts consistent with that standard.” State v. Schmidt, 2015 UT 65, ¶ 4 , 356 P.3d 1204 (cleaned up). 2 Cite as: 2024 UT 13 Opinion of the Court old, had “r[u]n away from home,” and wanted to “go to Cali[fornia].” She asked Smith if he would “give [her] $200 for food and cash” so she could “pay someone for a ride.” In exchange, she promised she would “do whatever [he] want[ed].” Smith, who had opened the conversation by sending Emily photos of his penis, responded with hesitation.

2024We recite the facts consistent with that standard.” State v. Schmidt, 2015 UT 65, ¶ 4 , 356 P.3d 1204 (cleaned up). 2 Cite as: 2024 UT 13 Opinion of the Court old, had “r[u]n away from home,” and wanted to “go to Cali[fornia].” She asked Smith if he would “give [her] $200 for food and cash” so she could “pay someone for a ride.” In exchange, she promised she would “do whatever [he] want[ed].” Smith, who had opened the conversation by sending Emily photos of his penis, responded with hesitation.

2023However, we present conflicting evidence to the extent necessary to clarify the issues raised on appeal.” Kidd v. Kidd, 2014 UT App 26, n.1 , 321 P.3d 200 (cleaned up). 20200507-CA 2 2023 UT App 17 Mintz v. Mintz and assisting other employees in managing their clients’ assets.

2023The Cocks Family Trust is the record owner of the two lots, but for simplicity we refer to the Cockses as the owners. 20200961-CA 2 2023 UT App 97 Cocks v. Swains Creek Pines Lot Owners Association Some owners used, or supported the placement of, RVs on at least some of the lots.

2022“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the district court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” Nebeker v. Orton, 2019 UT App 23, n.1 , 438 P.3d 1053 (cleaned up). 20200586-CA 2 2022 UT App 13 Hinds v. Hinds-Holm ¶5 Mother then left New Mexico with Child to live with Grandmother in Utah.

2022“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the district court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” Nebeker v. Orton, 2019 UT App 23, n.1 , 438 P.3d 1053 (cleaned up). 20200586-CA 2 2022 UT App 13 Hinds v. Hinds-Holm ¶5 Mother then left New Mexico with Child to live with Grandmother in Utah.

2022“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the district court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” Nebeker v. Orton, 2019 UT App 23, n.1 , 438 P.3d 1053 (cleaned up). 20200586-CA 2 2022 UT App 13 Hinds v. Hinds-Holm ¶5 Mother then left New Mexico with Child to live with Grandmother in Utah.

2022“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard, and we present conflicting evidence to the extent necessary to clarify the issues raised on appeal.” Nakkina v. Mahanthi, 2021 UT App 111, n.2 , 496 P.3d 1173 (cleaned up). 20200193-CA 2 2022 UT App 27 Erickson v. Erickson a temporary restraining order, asking the court to appoint a receiver for Meds.

2022“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” Chesley v. Chesley, 2017 UT App 127 , ¶ 2 n.2, 402 P.3d 65 (cleaned up). 20200935-CA 2 2022 UT App 65 Beckham v. Beckham relationship between” the parties by granting Vicki a beneficiary interest in a policy on Randall’s life.

2022Because DSS is NSCI’s successor, we refer to the joint venture as DSS throughout this opinion. 20200309-CA 2 2022 UT App 91 Diversified Striping v. Kraus The Kraus Parties ¶4 Joe Kraus owned or controlled National Striping Inc. (NSI), which provided striping services in California.

2022“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” Chesley v. Chesley, 2017 UT App 127 , ¶ 2 n.2, 402 P.3d 65 (cleaned up). 20200547-CA 2 2022 UT App 103 Labon v. Labon the Park City house were split equally, with each party receiving $3,077,000 in cash.

2021In this case, which comes to us after an evidentiary hearing to the bench, “we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” See Linebaugh v. Gibson, 2020 UT App 108 , ¶ 3 n.5, 471 P.3d 835 (quotation simplified). 20210280-CA 2 2021 UT App 110 Scott v. Benson regarding Sibling (but not Child), in which she sought to establish that Scott was Sibling’s father and to require him to pay child support.

2021However, we present conflicting evidence to the extent necessary to clarify the issues raised on appeal.” State v. Nichols, 2003 UT App 287, n.1 , 76 P.3d 1173 (quotation simplified). 20190357-CA 2 2021 UT App 15 State v. Betony ¶4 Mother’s relationship with Betony was likewise marred by drinking, “a lot of arguing,” and physical altercations.

2021“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard and only present conflicting evidence to the extent necessary to clarify the issues raised on appeal.” Linebaugh v. Gibson, 2020 UT App 108, n.5 , 471 P.3d 835 (quotation simplified). 20200234-CA 2 2021 UT App 130 Johansen v. Johansen found that the apparent violation of the rule was harmless.