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 1988–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Broadwater v. Old Republic Suretygreen2 sentences2020Thus, we have no occasion to consider whether the “demonstrable economic injury” sustained by the Credit Card Companies could have been included in the restitution award ordered in this case, in addition to the losses ultimately borne by Parents. 20180452-CA 9 2020 UT App 6 State v. Sevastopoulos prosecution is beside the point of whether Parents are entitled to restitution under the third-party tort rule for the costs that Parents incurred. ¶16 Sevastopoulos also argues that the attorney fees are not recoverable in a civil action for conversion, as a matter of law, citing Broadwater v. Old Re 2020Id. | 2 | 2 |
South Sanpitch Co. v. Packgreen2 sentences2020E.g., State v. Depaoli, 835 P.2d 162, 165 (Utah 1992). ¶13 However, one exception to these general rules is the “third-party tort rule.” South Sanpitch Co. v. Pack, 765 P.2d 1279 , 1282–83 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (holding that the attorney fees were recoverable under the third-party tort rule and explaining that “when the natural consequence of one’s negligence is another’s involvement in a dispute with a third party, attorney fees reasonably incurred in resolving the dispute are recoverable from the negligent party as an element of damages”). 2013See South Sanpitch, 765 P.2d at 1282-83 (noting that recovery of attorney fees under the third-party tort rule requires success on an underlying tort claim). | 1 | 3 |
USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorpgreen2 sentences2021INST. 1979); see USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorp, 2016 UT 20 , ¶ 93 n.128, 372 P.3d 629 (endorsing the third-party tort rule). ¶12 The fees at issue fit squarely within this rule. 2021INST. 1979); see USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorp, 2016 UT 20 , ¶ 93 n.128, 372 P.3d 629 (endorsing the third-party tort rule). ¶12 The fees at issue fit squarely within this rule. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ogdengreen2 sentences2020See State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 43 , 416 P.3d 1132 (explaining that the purposes of the Restitution Statute are to compensate victims, to rehabilitate defendants, and to deter crime). ¶14 Here, the attorney and accountant fees fall directly within the parameters of the third-party tort rule. 2020See State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 43 , 416 P.3d 1132 (explaining that the purposes of the Restitution Statute are to compensate victims, to rehabilitate defendants, and to deter crime). ¶14 Here, the attorney and accountant fees fall directly within the parameters of the third-party tort rule. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jamiesongreen2 sentences2020Under the third-party tort rule, “[o]ne who through the tort of another has been required to act in the protection of his interests by bringing or defending an action against a third person is entitled to recover reasonable compensation for loss of time, attorney fees and other expenditures.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 914(2); see also State v. Jamieson, 2017 UT App 236 , ¶ 21, 414 P.3d 559 (discussing the third-party tort rule but concluding that it was inapplicable because the victim was compelled to participate in the prosecution pursuant to a subpoena and did not initiate or defend an 2020Under the third-party tort rule, “[o]ne who through the tort of another has been required to act in the protection of his interests by bringing or defending an action against a third person is entitled to recover reasonable compensation for loss of time, attorney fees and other expenditures.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 914(2); see also State v. Jamieson, 2017 UT App 236 , ¶ 21, 414 P.3d 559 (discussing the third-party tort rule but concluding that it was inapplicable because the victim was compelled to participate in the prosecution pursuant to a subpoena and did not initiate or defend an | 1 | 1 |
In re Kollergreen2 sentences2020Under the third-party tort rule, “[o]ne who through the tort of another has been required to act in the protection of his interests by bringing or defending an action against a third person is entitled to recover reasonable compensation for loss of time, attorney fees and other expenditures.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 914(2); see also State v. Jamieson, 2017 UT App 236 , ¶ 21, 414 P.3d 559 (discussing the third-party tort rule but concluding that it was inapplicable because the victim was compelled to participate in the prosecution pursuant to a subpoena and did not initiate or defend an 2020Under the third-party tort rule, “[o]ne who through the tort of another has been required to act in the protection of his interests by bringing or defending an action against a third person is entitled to recover reasonable compensation for loss of time, attorney fees and other expenditures.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 914(2); see also State v. Jamieson, 2017 UT App 236 , ¶ 21, 414 P.3d 559 (discussing the third-party tort rule but concluding that it was inapplicable because the victim was compelled to participate in the prosecution pursuant to a subpoena and did not initiate or defend an | 1 | 1 |
State v. Depaoligreen1 sentence2020E.g., State v. Depaoli, 835 P.2d 162, 165 (Utah 1992). ¶13 However, one exception to these general rules is the “third-party tort rule.” South Sanpitch Co. v. Pack, 765 P.2d 1279 , 1282–83 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (holding that the attorney fees were recoverable under the third-party tort rule and explaining that “when the natural consequence of one’s negligence is another’s involvement in a dispute with a third party, attorney fees reasonably incurred in resolving the dispute are recoverable from the negligent party as an element of damages”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sevastopoulos
green
2 sentences2021State v. Sevastopoulos, 2020 UT App 6, ¶ 14 , 458 P.3d 2 Cite as: 2021 UT 70 Opinion of the Court 1149. 2020Thus, we have no occasion to consider whether the “demonstrable economic injury” sustained by the Credit Card Companies could have been included in the restitution award ordered in this case, in addition to the losses ultimately borne by Parents. 20180452-CA 9 2020 UT App 6 State v. Sevastopoulos prosecution is beside the point of whether Parents are entitled to restitution under the third-party tort rule for the costs that Parents incurred. ¶16 Sevastopoulos also argues that the attorney fees are not recoverable in a civil action for conversion, as a matter of law, citing Broadwater v. Old Re | 2 | 2020–2021 |
State v. Sevastopoulos
green
1 sentence2021State v. Sevastopoulos, 2020 UT App 6, ¶ 14 , 458 P.3d 2 Cite as: 2021 UT 70 Opinion of the Court 1149. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Lewiston State Bank v. Greenline Equipment, L.L.C.
green
2 sentences2009"Where a breach of contract has not occurred, the supreme court has allowed consequential damages only when the natural consequence of one's negligence is another's involvement in a dispute with a third party, which is also known as the third-party tort rule." Lewiston State Bank v. Greenline Equip., LLC, 2006 UT App 446, ¶ 22 , 147 P.3d 951 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2009"Where a breach of contract has not occurred, the supreme court has allowed consequential damages only when the natural consequence of one's negligence is another's involvement in a dispute with a third party, which is also known as the third-party tort rule." Lewiston State Bank v. Greenline Equip., LLC, 2006 UT App 446, ¶ 22 , 147 P.3d 951 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Dixie State Bank v. Bracken
green
1 sentence1988Of course, care must be taken in cases like this to ensure not only that the attorney fees are otherwise properly calculated, see, e.g., Dixie State Bank v. Bracken, 764 P.2d 985 (Utah 1988), but also that an allocation is made between recoverable fees incurred in litigation with third parties and non-recoverable fees incurred in pursuing the negligent defendant or expended on causes of action not proximately necessitated by that defendant’s negligence. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.