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.
7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chandler v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Utahgreen2 sentences2022Had the court applied the Chandler test, the result would have been the same. ¶26 Under Chandler, “waiver of a right of arbitration must be based on both a finding of participation in litigation to a point inconsistent with the intent to arbitrate and a finding of prejudice.” Id. (emphasis added). 2022Had the court applied the Chandler test, the result would have been the same. ¶26 Under Chandler, “waiver of a right of arbitration must be based on both a finding of participation in litigation to a point inconsistent with the intent to arbitrate and a finding of prejudice.” Id. (emphasis added). | 2 | 4 |
Central Florida Investments, Inc. v. Parkwest Associatesgreen2 sentences2021“The party claiming waiver has the burden of establishing substantial participation and prejudice.” Id. ¶12 Before we address the two prongs of the Chandler test, we must first resolve the parties’ dispute over the proper standard of review. 2021“The party claiming waiver has the burden of establishing substantial participation and prejudice.” Id. ¶12 Before we address the two prongs of the Chandler test, we must first resolve the parties’ dispute over the proper standard of review. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Turpin v. Valley Obstetrics and Gynecology
green
2 sentences2022Not only did the Livingstons neglect to provide any evidence to the district court to demonstrate that they incurred “significant expenses” defending against the removal sufficient to establish prejudice under the Chandler standard, see Turpin, 2021 UT App 12, ¶ 28 , they conceded in oral argument before this court that the federal court awarded them the attorney fees they incurred when it rejected the removal as improper. 2022Not only did the Livingstons neglect to provide any evidence to the district court to demonstrate that they incurred “significant expenses” defending against the removal sufficient to establish prejudice under the Chandler standard, see Turpin, 2021 UT App 12, ¶ 28 , they conceded in oral argument before this court that the federal court awarded them the attorney fees they incurred when it rejected the removal as improper. | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Hardman v. Hardman
green
2 sentences2024As we did in Turpin and Livingston, because none of the parties has argued that prejudice is no longer an element of the Chandler waiver test, and because we do not reach the prejudice question anyway, we assume for purposes of our review that the prejudice prong still applies. 20220609-CA 7 2024 UT App 115 Hardman v. Hardman ¶12 Before we address the two parts of the Chandler test, we must first resolve the parties’ dispute over the proper standard of review. 2024As we did in Turpin and Livingston, because none of the parties has argued that prejudice is no longer an element of the Chandler waiver test, and because we do not reach the prejudice question anyway, we assume for purposes of our review that the prejudice prong still applies. 20220609-CA 7 2024 UT App 115 Hardman v. Hardman ¶12 Before we address the two parts of the Chandler test, we must first resolve the parties’ dispute over the proper standard of review. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Livingston v. Finco Holdings
green
2 sentences2022Accordingly, we assume for purposes of our review in this case that the prejudice prong still applies. 20200200-CA 13 2022 UT App 71 Livingston v. Finco Holdings did not show that Lender Defendants’ delay in seeking arbitration prejudiced them. 2022The Livingstons claim they suffered prejudice because they incurred “substantial litigation expense” and several of their claims were 20200200-CA 14 2022 UT App 71 Livingston v. Finco Holdings dismissed. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Mounteer Enters., Inc. v. Homeowners Ass'n for the Colony at White Pine Canyon
green
2 sentences2021Id. ¶¶ 9–10, 31–34. 2021Id. ¶¶ 9–10, 31–34. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
ASC Utah, Inc. v. Wolf Mountain Resorts, L.C.
green
2 sentences2021There, the court stated, for the first time in the Chandler context, that “when a district court denies a motion to compel arbitration based on documentary evidence alone, it is a legal conclusion that is reviewed for correctness.” ASC Utah, 2010 UT 65, ¶ 11 . ¶16 Turpin invites us to overlook this statement, arguing that “the standard of review in ASC Utah does not apply here” because the ASC Utah court decided only whether the Chandler test applied in that case and did not evaluate whether the evidence supported the district court’s waiver determination. 2021There, the court stated, for the first time in the Chandler context, that “when a district court denies a motion to compel arbitration based on documentary evidence alone, it is a legal conclusion that is reviewed for correctness.” ASC Utah, 2010 UT 65, ¶ 11 . ¶16 Turpin invites us to overlook this statement, arguing that “the standard of review in ASC Utah does not apply here” because the ASC Utah court decided only whether the Chandler test applied in that case and did not evaluate whether the evidence supported the district court’s waiver determination. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Baker v. Stevens
green
2 sentences2021See, e.g., Chandler, 833 P.2d at 360 ; Central Fla. Invs. 2002 UT 3, ¶ 28 ; Baker v. Stevens, 2005 UT 32 , ¶¶ 13–15, 114 P.3d 580 ; Smile Inc. Asia Pte. 2021See, e.g., Chandler, 833 P.2d at 360 ; Central Fla. Invs. 2002 UT 3, ¶ 28 ; Baker v. Stevens, 2005 UT 32 , ¶¶ 13–15, 114 P.3d 580 ; Smile Inc. Asia Pte. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
EDUCATORS MUT. INS. ASS'N v. Evans
green
2 sentences2021Id. 2021Id. | 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.