8 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Win-Win v. Dutsongreen1 sentence2021In determining whether an unpleaded issue has been tried by implied consent, the court must consider whether the opposing party had “adequate notice” of the issue “and an opportunity to meet it.” Colman v. Colman, 743 P.2d 782, 785 (Utah Ct. App. 1987); see also Estate of Allred, 2009 UT 28, ¶ 48 (explaining that “the test for 20190332-CA 8 2021 UT App 18 Win-Win v. Dutson determining whether pleadings should be deemed amended under Utah R. | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Estate of Allredgreen1 sentence2021In determining whether an unpleaded issue has been tried by implied consent, the court must consider whether the opposing party had “adequate notice” of the issue “and an opportunity to meet it.” Colman v. Colman, 743 P.2d 782, 785 (Utah Ct. App. 1987); see also Estate of Allred, 2009 UT 28, ¶ 48 (explaining that “the test for 20190332-CA 8 2021 UT App 18 Win-Win v. Dutson determining whether pleadings should be deemed amended under Utah R. | 1 | 1 |
Colman v. Colmangreen1 sentence2021In determining whether an unpleaded issue has been tried by implied consent, the court must consider whether the opposing party had “adequate notice” of the issue “and an opportunity to meet it.” Colman v. Colman, 743 P.2d 782, 785 (Utah Ct. App. 1987); see also Estate of Allred, 2009 UT 28, ¶ 48 (explaining that “the test for 20190332-CA 8 2021 UT App 18 Win-Win v. Dutson determining whether pleadings should be deemed amended under Utah R. | 1 | 1 |
Fisher v. Davidhizargreen2 sentences2019See Fisher v. Davidhizar , 2011 UT App 270 , ¶ 9, 263 P.3d 440 (explaining that where an issue is tried by the parties' express or implied consent, the court "must treat the claim as if it were properly raised in the pleadings" (quotation simplified)). ¶21 In her amended complaint, Conner titled her first cause of action "Wrongful Termination Against Public Policy," which, as the district court noted, is "a well-recognized tort claim in Utah." However, the label attached to the claim is not necessarily dispositive. 2019See Fisher v. Davidhizar , 2011 UT App 270 , ¶ 9, 263 P.3d 440 (explaining that where an issue is tried by the parties' express or implied consent, the court "must treat the claim as if it were properly raised in the pleadings" (quotation simplified)). ¶21 In her amended complaint, Conner titled her first cause of action "Wrongful Termination Against Public Policy," which, as the district court noted, is "a well-recognized tort claim in Utah." However, the label attached to the claim is not necessarily dispositive. | 1 | 1 |
Wheeler v. McPhersongreen2 sentences2016See Wheeler v. McPherson, 2002 UT 16, ¶ 20 , 40 P.3d 632 (stating that rule 12 “does not convert motions based on subsections (b)(1) through (5) ... into motions for summary judgment simply because they include some affirmative evidence relating to the basis for the motion.” (omission in original) (citation omitted)). 7 And while there may be factual disputes between the parties, the facts pertaining to UCCJEA jurisdiction—primarily, Child’s long-term residence in Illinois—are not in dispute. ¶26 Nevares also argues that the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) grants Utah jurisdi 2016See Wheeler v. McPherson, 2002 UT 16, ¶ 20 , 40 P.3d 632 (stating that rule 12 “does not convert motions based on subsections (b)(1) through (5) ... into motions for summary judgment simply because they include some affirmative evidence relating to the basis for the motion.” (omission in original) (citation omitted)). 7 And while there may be factual disputes between the parties, the facts pertaining to UCCJEA jurisdiction—primarily, Child’s long-term residence in Illinois—are not in dispute. ¶26 Nevares also argues that the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) grants Utah jurisdi | 1 | 1 |
Strand v. Associated Students of the University of Utahgreen1 sentence2002P. 12(b); see also Strand v. Associated Students of the Univ. of Utah, 561 P.2d 191, 193 (Utah 1977) (explaining that the trial court has initial discretion to consider matters outside the pleadings in rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Penagreen2 sentences1998Our review of the trial court's application of rule 15(b) is a legal question that we review for "correctness." See State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 936 (Utah 1994). 1998Our review of the trial court’s application of rule 15(b) is a legal question that we review for “correctness.” See State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 936 (Utah 1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moss v. Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless
green
1 sentence2025Id. ¶143 By distinguishing between these procedural postures, we analyzed the pleading-burden question in a way that we did not in Perry. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Sorensen v. Sparks
green
1 sentence2022The court 20200648-CA 6 2022 UT App 113 Sorensen v. Sparks first held that Sorensen did not allege in his first amended complaint “that he signed the articles o[f] organization or any operati[ng] agreement, nor does he allege that the defendant businesses ever acknowledged his membership,” nor did “the facts set out in the complaint . . . support [Sorensen] becoming a member after the formation of defendant businesses.” Additionally, after recognizing the eighteen questions Appellees listed in their earlier motion, the court held that in any event, “declaratory judgment would not . . . termina | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Haskell v. Wakefield and Associates
green
1 sentence2021Group, 2014 UT 13, n.1 , 325 P.3d 70 (quotation simplified). 20200412-CA 2 2021 UT App 123 Haskell v. Wakefield & Assocs. ¶4 A few months later, Wakefield moved for judgment on the pleadings under rule 12(c) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Pilot v. Hill
green
2 sentences2021As a result, Win-Win argues, relief was mandatory and the district court had no discretion to deny its motion to amend the pleadings under rule 15(b)(1). ¶20 Although an unpleaded issue “must” be treated as if raised in the pleadings if the issue was tried by consent, the determination of whether the issue was tried by consent “is highly fact intensive” and the district court has a “fairly broad measure of discretion in making that determination.” Pilot v. Hill, 2019 UT 10, ¶ 9 , 437 P.3d 362 (cleaned up). 2021As a result, Win-Win argues, relief was mandatory and the district court had no discretion to deny its motion to amend the pleadings under rule 15(b)(1). ¶20 Although an unpleaded issue “must” be treated as if raised in the pleadings if the issue was tried by consent, the determination of whether the issue was tried by consent “is highly fact intensive” and the district court has a “fairly broad measure of discretion in making that determination.” Pilot v. Hill, 2019 UT 10, ¶ 9 , 437 P.3d 362 (cleaned up). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Energy Claims Ltd. v. Catalyst Investment Group Ltd.
green
2 sentences2021Group, 2014 UT 13, n.1 , 325 P.3d 70 (quotation simplified). 20200412-CA 2 2021 UT App 123 Haskell v. Wakefield & Assocs. ¶4 A few months later, Wakefield moved for judgment on the pleadings under rule 12(c) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. 2021Group, 2014 UT 13, n.1 , 325 P.3d 70 (quotation simplified). 20200412-CA 2 2021 UT App 123 Haskell v. Wakefield & Assocs. ¶4 A few months later, Wakefield moved for judgment on the pleadings under rule 12(c) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.