erroncous standard in Utah

2016We "review the juvenile court's factual findings based upon the clearly erroncous standard." State ex rel, E.R., 2001 UT App 66 , T11, 21 P.8d 680.

2016We "review the juvenile court's factual findings based upon the clearly erroncous standard." State ex rel, E.R., 2001 UT App 66 , T11, 21 P.8d 680.

2012Cf. Daines v. Vincent, 2008 UT 51, ¶ 25 , 190 P.3d 1269 (noting that the admission of parol evidence in interpreting a facially ambiguous contract presents a question of fact); Edwards v. Powder Mountain Water & Sewer, 2009 UT App 185, ¶ 13 , 214 P.3d 120 (noting questions of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroncous standard); see also Makoff v. Makoff, 528 P.2d 797, 798 (Utah 1974) ("The general rules of construction of written instruments apply to the construction of trust instruments. ..."); In re Hamilton, 869 P.2d 971, 975 (Utah Ct.App.1994) ("The factual issue of the decedent's intent

2012Cf. Daines v. Vincent, 2008 UT 51, ¶ 25 , 190 P.3d 1269 (noting that the admission of parol evidence in interpreting a facially ambiguous contract presents a question of fact); Edwards v. Powder Mountain Water & Sewer, 2009 UT App 185, ¶ 13 , 214 P.3d 120 (noting questions of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroncous standard); see also Makoff v. Makoff, 528 P.2d 797, 798 (Utah 1974) ("The general rules of construction of written instruments apply to the construction of trust instruments. ..."); In re Hamilton, 869 P.2d 971, 975 (Utah Ct.App.1994) ("The factual issue of the decedent's intent

2012"In reviewing the admissibility of hearsay, legal conclusions are reviewed for correctness, factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, and the ultimate question of admissibility is reviewed for abuse of discretion." State v. C.D.L., 2011 UT App 55 , ¶ 29, 250 P.3d 69 , cert. denied, 255 P.3d 684 (Utah 2011). 123 Finally, TJ contends that the trial court erred in denying attorney fees to her under Utah Code section 75-7-1004.

2012"In reviewing the admissibility of hearsay, legal conclusions are reviewed for correctness, factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, and the ultimate question of admissibility is reviewed for abuse of discretion." State v. C.D.L., 2011 UT App 55 , ¶ 29, 250 P.3d 69 , cert. denied, 255 P.3d 684 (Utah 2011). 123 Finally, TJ contends that the trial court erred in denying attorney fees to her under Utah Code section 75-7-1004.

2011"Findings of fact in divorcee appeals are subject to the clearly erroncous standard of review." Id. 127 .

2010"Whether the State's destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence violates due process is a question of law that we review for correctness. 'Howeyer, because this question requires application of facts in the record to the due process standard, we incorporate a clearly erroncous standard for the necessary subsidiary factual determinations." State v. Tiedemann, 2007 UT 49, ¶ 12 , 162 P.3d 1106 (citation omitted). 111 Next, Defendant challenges the trial court's decision to reopen the case to allow the State to present additional evidence on the aggravating cireumstance.

2010"Whether the State's destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence violates due process is a question of law that we review for correctness. 'Howeyer, because this question requires application of facts in the record to the due process standard, we incorporate a clearly erroncous standard for the necessary subsidiary factual determinations." State v. Tiedemann, 2007 UT 49, ¶ 12 , 162 P.3d 1106 (citation omitted). 111 Next, Defendant challenges the trial court's decision to reopen the case to allow the State to present additional evidence on the aggravating cireumstance.

2006Vigil v. Div. of Child & Family Servs., 2005 UT App 48 , ¶ 7, 107 P.3d 716 . 17 Although both parties to this appeal state that we should review the third issue-whether there was sufficient proof to support the order of immediate occupancy-under a clearly erroncous standard, our prior cases have recognized that weighing the equities of an order of immediate occupancy is largely a discretionary function.

2003"However, we review the trial court's conclusions of law based on these findings 'for correctness, with a measure of discretion given to the trial judge's application of the legal standard to the facts' " Id. (quoting State v. Moreno, 910 P.2d 1245, 1247 (Utah Ct.App.1996)). 17 "To determine whether a search or a seizure is constitutionally reasonable, we must first determine whether the officer's action was ' "justified at its inception." ' " State v. Chapman, 921 P.2d 446, 450 (Utah 1996) (quoting State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127, 1132 (Utah 1994) (additional citation omitted).

2003ANALYSIS 16 Despain argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence discovered as a result of Olsen's question concerning weapons possession. " 'We review the factual findings underlying the trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress evidence using a clearly erroncous standard." " State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶ 9 , 999 P.2d 7 (quoting State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932 , 939 n. 4 (Utah 1994)).

2003ANALYSIS 16 Despain argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence discovered as a result of Olsen's question concerning weapons possession. " 'We review the factual findings underlying the trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress evidence using a clearly erroncous standard." " State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶ 9 , 999 P.2d 7 (quoting State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932 , 939 n. 4 (Utah 1994)).

2003ANALYSIS 16 Despain argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence discovered as a result of Olsen's question concerning weapons possession. " 'We review the factual findings underlying the trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress evidence using a clearly erroncous standard." " State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶ 9 , 999 P.2d 7 (quoting State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932 , 939 n. 4 (Utah 1994)).