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 1 courts 2011–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. Frielgreen2 sentences2017See Allen v. Friel, 2008 UT 56, ¶ 4 , 194 P.3d 903 (noting that, in order for an appellant to persuade a reviewing court that the district court’s determinations were in error, the appellant must engage with and challenge the actual bases of the district court’s decisions); Duchesne Land, LC v. Division of Consumer Prot,, 2011 UT App 153, ¶ 8 , 257 P.3d 441 (concluding that the appellants had failed to persuade the court “that the district court’s ruling constituted error” where the appellants failed to address “the actual basis for the district court’s ruling”). 2017See Allen v. Friel, 2008 UT 56, ¶ 4 , 194 P.3d 903 (noting that, in order for an appellant to persuade a reviewing court that the district court’s determinations were in error, the appellant must engage with and challenge the actual bases of the district court’s decisions); Duchesne Land, LC v. Division of Consumer Prot,, 2011 UT App 153, ¶ 8 , 257 P.3d 441 (concluding that the appellants had failed to persuade the court “that the district court’s ruling constituted error” where the appellants failed to address “the actual basis for the district court’s ruling”). | 3 | 4 |
Duchesne Land, LC v. Division of Consumer Protectiongreen2 sentences2020Corp. v. Shaw, 2018 UT App 120, ¶ 20 , 428 P.3d 12 (explaining that an appellant who “does not meaningfully engage with the district court’s reasoning” necessarily “falls short of demonstrating any error on the part of the district court”); Duchesne Land LC v. Division of Consumer Prot., 2011 UT App 153, ¶ 8 , 257 P.3d 441 (“Because [the appellants] have not addressed the actual basis for the district court’s ruling, they have failed to persuade us that the district court’s ruling constituted error . . . .”); Golden Meadows Props. 2020Corp. v. Shaw, 2018 UT App 120, ¶ 20 , 428 P.3d 12 (explaining that an appellant who “does not meaningfully engage with the district court’s reasoning” necessarily “falls short of demonstrating any error on the part of the district court”); Duchesne Land LC v. Division of Consumer Prot., 2011 UT App 153, ¶ 8 , 257 P.3d 441 (“Because [the appellants] have not addressed the actual basis for the district court’s ruling, they have failed to persuade us that the district court’s ruling constituted error . . . .”); Golden Meadows Props. | 2 | 7 |
Rivers v. DEQgreen2 sentences2020Quality, 2017 UT 64 , ¶¶ 36–51, 417 P.3d 57 (declining to reach the merits of the appeal where the petitioner “utterly fail[ed] to engage with the substance of the [lower tribunal’s] ruling”); Duchesne Land, LC v. Division of Consumer Prot., 2011 UT App 153, ¶ 8 , 257 P.3d 441 (“Because [the appellants] have not addressed the actual basis for the district court’s ruling, they have failed to persuade us that the district court’s ruling constituted error . . . .”). 2020See Living Rivers, 2017 UT 64 , ¶¶ 41–43, 50–51; Duchesne Land, LC v. Division of Consumer Prot., 2011 UT App 153, ¶ 8 , 257 P.3d 441 (“Because [the appellants] have not addressed the actual basis for the district court’s ruling, they have failed to persuade us that the district court’s ruling constituted error . . . .”); see also Utah R. | 1 | 2 |
DUCHESNE LAND v. Division of Consumer Protectiongreen1 sentence2012See Duchesne Land, LC v. Division of Consumer Protection, 2011 UT App 153, ¶ 8 , 257 P.3d 441 ("Because Appellants have not addressed the actual basis for the district court's ruling, they have failed to persuade us that the district court's ruling constituted error ..."), cert. denied 262 P.3d 1187 (Utah 2011). .He does address mootness in his reply brief. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Golden Meadows Properties, LC v. Strand
green
2 sentences2017LC v. Strand, 2010 UT App 257, ¶ 17 , 241 P.3d 375 ) (explaining that appellate review is “confined *1065 to the trial court’s ruling[s] and rejecting a challenge where the appellant’s brief “ ‘failfed] to address the basis of the district court’s ruling’”); State v. Cooper, 2012 UT App 211, ¶ 10 , 283 P.3d 1075 (declining to reach an issue in part because the appellant “fail[ed] to address ... the district court’s consideration and rejection of [the issue being appealed] when it was raised in a motion for new trial”); Duchesne Land, LC v. Division of Consumer Prot., 2011 UT App 153, ¶ 8 , 257 2017LC v. Strand, 2010 UT App 257, ¶ 17 , 241 P.3d 375 ) (explaining that appellate review is “confined *1065 to the trial court’s ruling[s] and rejecting a challenge where the appellant’s brief “ ‘failfed] to address the basis of the district court’s ruling’”); State v. Cooper, 2012 UT App 211, ¶ 10 , 283 P.3d 1075 (declining to reach an issue in part because the appellant “fail[ed] to address ... the district court’s consideration and rejection of [the issue being appealed] when it was raised in a motion for new trial”); Duchesne Land, LC v. Division of Consumer Prot., 2011 UT App 153, ¶ 8 , 257 | 2 | 2017–2020 |
Federated Capital Corporation v. Shaw
green
2 sentences2020Corp. v. Shaw, 2018 UT App 120, ¶ 20 , 428 P.3d 12 (explaining that an appellant who “does not meaningfully engage with the district court’s reasoning” necessarily “falls short of demonstrating any error on the part of the district court”); Duchesne Land LC v. Division of Consumer Prot., 2011 UT App 153, ¶ 8 , 257 P.3d 441 (“Because [the appellants] have not addressed the actual basis for the district court’s ruling, they have failed to persuade us that the district court’s ruling constituted error . . . .”); Golden Meadows Props. 2020Corp. v. Shaw, 2018 UT App 120, ¶ 20 , 428 P.3d 12 (explaining that an appellant who “does not meaningfully engage with the district court’s reasoning” necessarily “falls short of demonstrating any error on the part of the district court”); Duchesne Land LC v. Division of Consumer Prot., 2011 UT App 153, ¶ 8 , 257 P.3d 441 (“Because [the appellants] have not addressed the actual basis for the district court’s ruling, they have failed to persuade us that the district court’s ruling constituted error . . . .”); Golden Meadows Props. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Rivers v. Exec. Dir. of the Utah Dep't of Envtl. Quality & the Dir. of the Utah Div. of Water Quality
green
1 sentence2020Quality, 2017 UT 64 , ¶¶ 36–51, 417 P.3d 57 (declining to reach the merits of the appeal where the petitioner “utterly fail[ed] to engage with the substance of the [lower tribunal’s] ruling”); Duchesne Land, LC v. Division of Consumer Prot., 2011 UT App 153, ¶ 8 , 257 P.3d 441 (“Because [the appellants] have not addressed the actual basis for the district court’s ruling, they have failed to persuade us that the district court’s ruling constituted error . . . .”). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Cooper
neutral
2 sentences2017LC v. Strand, 2010 UT App 257, ¶ 17 , 241 P.3d 375 ) (explaining that appellate review is “confined *1065 to the trial court’s ruling[s] and rejecting a challenge where the appellant’s brief “ ‘failfed] to address the basis of the district court’s ruling’”); State v. Cooper, 2012 UT App 211, ¶ 10 , 283 P.3d 1075 (declining to reach an issue in part because the appellant “fail[ed] to address ... the district court’s consideration and rejection of [the issue being appealed] when it was raised in a motion for new trial”); Duchesne Land, LC v. Division of Consumer Prot., 2011 UT App 153, ¶ 8 , 257 2017LC v. Strand, 2010 UT App 257, ¶ 17 , 241 P.3d 375 ) (explaining that appellate review is “confined *1065 to the trial court’s ruling[s] and rejecting a challenge where the appellant’s brief “ ‘failfed] to address the basis of the district court’s ruling’”); State v. Cooper, 2012 UT App 211, ¶ 10 , 283 P.3d 1075 (declining to reach an issue in part because the appellant “fail[ed] to address ... the district court’s consideration and rejection of [the issue being appealed] when it was raised in a motion for new trial”); Duchesne Land, LC v. Division of Consumer Prot., 2011 UT App 153, ¶ 8 , 257 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.