national standard in Utah

2012Id. at 488-84 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). (36 Based on this authority, the District asserts that [tlhe specialized knowledge regarding cast iron pipelines, including their expected and reasonably anticipated lifetimes, the nature of breaks to such pipelines, the effect of various kinds of soil conditions, the proper means of repair, the proper interpretation of a history of breaks to a particular pipeline, the identification and prioritization of [Identified Pipe], and the available and proper maintenance measures, including replacement of water lines, are all matters beyo

2012Id. at 433‐34 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶36 Based on this authority, the District asserts that [t]he specialized knowledge regarding cast iron pipelines, including their expected and reasonably anticipated lifetimes, the nature of breaks to such pipelines, the effect of various kinds of soil conditions, the proper means of repair, the proper interpretation of a history of breaks to a particular pipeline, the identification and prioritization of [Identified Pipe], and the available and proper maintenance measures, including replacement of water lines, are all matters beyo

2011See id.

1994Sterling v. Cupp, 290 Or. 611 , 625 P.2d 123, 126 (1981); see also Hans A. Linde, E Pluri-bus — Constitutional Theory and State Courts, 18 Ga.L.Rev. 165, 178 (1984) (“My own view has long been that a state court always is responsible for the law of its state before deciding whether the state falls short of a national standard, so that no federal issue is properly reached when the state’s law protects the claimed right.”); Hans A. Linde, First Things First: Rediscovering the States’ Bills of Rights, 9 U.Balt.L.Rev. 379, 383 (1980) (“Just as rights under the state constitutions were first in tim

1994Sterling v. Cupp, 290 Or. 611 , 625 P.2d 123, 126 (1981); see also Hans A. Linde, E Pluri-bus — Constitutional Theory and State Courts, 18 Ga.L.Rev. 165, 178 (1984) (“My own view has long been that a state court always is responsible for the law of its state before deciding whether the state falls short of a national standard, so that no federal issue is properly reached when the state’s law protects the claimed right.”); Hans A. Linde, First Things First: Rediscovering the States’ Bills of Rights, 9 U.Balt.L.Rev. 379, 383 (1980) (“Just as rights under the state constitutions were first in tim

1990See Curtis, 789 P.2d at 721 .

1978A national standard of care is realistic and appropriate concerning specialists and that standard was discussed in the following language of the Michigan Supreme Court, which I adopt, in Nacarrato v. Grob, 384 Mich. 248 , 180 N.W.2d 788, 791 (1970): The reliance of the public upon the skills of a specialist and the wealth and sources of his knowledge are not limited to the geographic area in which he practices.

1978A national standard of care is realistic and appropriate concerning specialists and that standard was discussed in the following language of the Michigan Supreme Court, which I adopt, in Nacarrato v. Grob, 384 Mich. 248 , 180 N.W.2d 788, 791 (1970): The reliance of the public upon the skills of a specialist and the wealth and sources of his knowledge are not limited to the geographic area in which he practices.