overriding principle in Utah

2022See also Little Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. Sandy City, 2016 UT 45, ¶ 17 , 387 P.3d 978 (“The finality of judgments rule recognizes that at some point, litigation must end.”); Holbrook v. Hodson, 466 P.2d 843, 845 (Utah 1970) (“The overriding principle of [our] rules is to assure the finality of judgments.”). 20200642-CA 12 2022 UT App 55 Ahmad v. Graco Fishing there is no need to address additional considerations if one is found wanting. ¶23 Here, it is clear that the motion was timely as Ahmad filed it well within the 90-day requirement of rule 60.

2022See also Little Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. Sandy City, 2016 UT 45, ¶ 17 , 387 P.3d 978 (“The finality of judgments rule recognizes that at some point, litigation must end.”); Holbrook v. Hodson, 466 P.2d 843, 845 (Utah 1970) (“The overriding principle of [our] rules is to assure the finality of judgments.”). 20200642-CA 12 2022 UT App 55 Ahmad v. Graco Fishing there is no need to address additional considerations if one is found wanting. ¶23 Here, it is clear that the motion was timely as Ahmad filed it well within the 90-day requirement of rule 60.

2022See also Little Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. Sandy City, 2016 UT 45, ¶ 17 , 387 P.3d 978 (“The finality of judgments rule recognizes that at some point, litigation must end.”); Holbrook v. Hodson, 466 P.2d 843, 845 (Utah 1970) (“The overriding principle of [our] rules is to assure the finality of judgments.”). 20200642-CA 12 2022 UT App 55 Ahmad v. Graco Fishing there is no need to address additional considerations if one is found wanting. ¶23 Here, it is clear that the motion was timely as Ahmad filed it well within the 90-day requirement of rule 60.

2021See Butcher v. Gilroy, 744 P.2d 311, 314 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (applying Holloway and framing the inquiry as a question as to whether a particular payment permitted an inference that the debtor “renewed [his] promise to pay the [creditor] or acknowledged any obligation on his part to 20200070-CA 10 2021 UT App 119 Dale K.

2021See Butcher v. Gilroy, 744 P.2d 311, 314 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (applying Holloway and framing the inquiry as a question as to whether a particular payment permitted an inference that the debtor “renewed [his] promise to pay the [creditor] or acknowledged any obligation on his part to 20200070-CA 10 2021 UT App 119 Dale K.

2013"The overriding principle behind the single larceny doctrine is to prevent the state from aggregating multiple criminal penalties for a single criminal act." Richardson v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 491 , 489 S.E.2d 697, 700 (1997) (en banc).

2013“The overriding principle behind the single larceny doctrine is to prevent the state from aggregating multiple criminal penalties for a single criminal act.” Richardson v. Commonwealth, 489 S.E.2d 697, 700 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (en banc).

2013The doe-trine thus often operates as a "humane rule," because "[ilf each article stolen were of a value sufficient to make the crime a felony, and a separate charge could be filed as to each, a defendant, if convicted, might be sentenced to the penitentiary for the rest of his life." Sweek v. People, 85 Colo. 479 , 277 P. 1, 3 (1929).

2013The doctrine thus often operates as a “humane rule,” because “[i]f each article stolen were of a value sufficient to make the crime a felony, and a separate charge could be filed as to each, a defendant, if convicted, might be sentenced to the peniten‐ tiary for the rest of his life.” Sweek v. People, 277 P. 1, 3 (Colo. 1929).

1994Although there is authority to that effect, that rule is subject to the overriding rule that a statute should be construed "in accordance with its object” or purpose, Jackson v. Kennecott Copper Corp., 27 Utah 2d 310, 315 , 495 P.2d 1254, 1257 (1972), and given the scope that is "necessary to achieve its purpose.” Gold Standard, Inc. v. American Barrick Resources Corp., 801 P.24 909, 911 (Utah 1990).

1994Although there is authority to that effect, that rule is subject to the overriding rule that a statute should be construed "in accordance with its object” or purpose, Jackson v. Kennecott Copper Corp., 27 Utah 2d 310, 315 , 495 P.2d 1254, 1257 (1972), and given the scope that is "necessary to achieve its purpose.” Gold Standard, Inc. v. American Barrick Resources Corp., 801 P.24 909, 911 (Utah 1990).