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.
6 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,228 Rocco Dileo and Louise Dileo v. Ernst & Younggreen2 sentences2013Coroles v. Saubey, 2003 UT App 339, ¶ 28 , 79 P.3d 974 ; see also Webster v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 2012 UT App 321, ¶ 19 , 290 P.3d 930 ("Rule 9 requires that a plaintiff not only allege facts to establish the elements of a fraud claim but also recite [tlhe relevant surrounding facts, such as the identity of the person who made the alleged misrepresentation[ ] and the time and location at which it was uttered." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir.1990) (explaining that the particularity requirement of the analogous rule 9 2012Thus, Webster's allegations generally allege fraudulent intent and are sufficient to put Chase on notice of the basis for Webster's claim against it. 119 Regarding the remaining elements of fraud, we conclude that Webster's amended complaint sufficiently complies with the particularity requirement of rule 9. 3 Rule 9 requires that a plaintiff not only allege facts to establish the elements of a fraud claim but also recite "[the relevant surrounding facts," such as the identity of the person "who made the alleged misrepresentation{ J" and "the time and location at which it was uttered." Coroles | 2 | 2 |
Robinson v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2022See Robinson v. Robinson, 2016 UT App 33, ¶ 55 , 368 P.3d 105 . ¶55 As set forth by our supreme court, the elements of a fraud claim are (1) that a representation was made (2) concerning a presently existing material fact (3) which was false and (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false or (b) made recklessly, knowing that there was insufficient knowledge upon which to base such a representation, (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it and (6) that the other party, acting reasonably and in ignorance of its falsity, (7) 20200280-CA 18 2022 UT App 92 11500 Spac 2022See Robinson v. Robinson, 2016 UT App 33, ¶ 55 , 368 P.3d 105 . ¶55 As set forth by our supreme court, the elements of a fraud claim are (1) that a representation was made (2) concerning a presently existing material fact (3) which was false and (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false or (b) made recklessly, knowing that there was insufficient knowledge upon which to base such a representation, (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it and (6) that the other party, acting reasonably and in ignorance of its falsity, (7) 20200280-CA 18 2022 UT App 92 11500 Spac | 1 | 1 |
11500 Space Center v. Private Capital Groupgreen1 sentence2022See Robinson v. Robinson, 2016 UT App 33, ¶ 55 , 368 P.3d 105 . ¶55 As set forth by our supreme court, the elements of a fraud claim are (1) that a representation was made (2) concerning a presently existing material fact (3) which was false and (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false or (b) made recklessly, knowing that there was insufficient knowledge upon which to base such a representation, (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it and (6) that the other party, acting reasonably and in ignorance of its falsity, (7) 20200280-CA 18 2022 UT App 92 11500 Spac | 1 | 1 |
Webster v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NAgreen2 sentences2013Coroles v. Saubey, 2003 UT App 339, ¶ 28 , 79 P.3d 974 ; see also Webster v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 2012 UT App 321, ¶ 19 , 290 P.3d 930 ("Rule 9 requires that a plaintiff not only allege facts to establish the elements of a fraud claim but also recite [tlhe relevant surrounding facts, such as the identity of the person who made the alleged misrepresentation[ ] and the time and location at which it was uttered." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir.1990) (explaining that the particularity requirement of the analogous rule 9 2013Coroles v. Saubey, 2003 UT App 339, ¶ 28 , 79 P.3d 974 ; see also Webster v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 2012 UT App 321, ¶ 19 , 290 P.3d 930 ("Rule 9 requires that a plaintiff not only allege facts to establish the elements of a fraud claim but also recite [tlhe relevant surrounding facts, such as the identity of the person who made the alleged misrepresentation[ ] and the time and location at which it was uttered." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir.1990) (explaining that the particularity requirement of the analogous rule 9 | 1 | 1 |
Nixdorf v. Hickengreen1 sentence2013With respect to the Shahs' fraud-based claims (fraudulent concealment, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation) against most of the Defendants, we agree with the trial court that the claims do not comply with the particularity requirement. 111 "Fraudulent concealment requires that one with a legal duty or obligation to communicate certain facts remain silent or otherwise act to conceal material facts known to him." Jensen v. IHC Hosps., Inc. (Jensen I), 944 P.2d 327, 333 (Utah 1997); see also Nixdorf v. Hicken, 612 P.2d 348, 354 (Utah 1980) ("The relationship between a doctor and his patient cr | 1 | 1 |
Jensen v. IHC Hospitals, Inc.green1 sentence2013With respect to the Shahs' fraud-based claims (fraudulent concealment, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation) against most of the Defendants, we agree with the trial court that the claims do not comply with the particularity requirement. 111 "Fraudulent concealment requires that one with a legal duty or obligation to communicate certain facts remain silent or otherwise act to conceal material facts known to him." Jensen v. IHC Hosps., Inc. (Jensen I), 944 P.2d 327, 333 (Utah 1997); see also Nixdorf v. Hicken, 612 P.2d 348, 354 (Utah 1980) ("The relationship between a doctor and his patient cr | 1 | 1 |
Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp.green2 sentences2012See Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 2009 UT 2 , ¶ 53 n. 38, 201 P.3d 966 ("The elements of a fraud claim include the following: (1) a representation; (2) concerning a presently existing material fact; (3) which was false; (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false, or (b) made recklessly, knowing that he had insufficient knowledge upon which to base such representation; (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it (6) that the other party, acting reasonably and in ignorance of its falsity; (7) did in fact rely upon it; (8) and was thereby induced to act; (9) to 2012See Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 2009 UT 2 , ¶ 53 n. 38, 201 P.3d 966 ("The elements of a fraud claim include the following: (1) a representation; (2) concerning a presently existing material fact; (3) which was false; (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false, or (b) made recklessly, knowing that he had insufficient knowledge upon which to base such representation; (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it (6) that the other party, acting reasonably and in ignorance of its falsity; (7) did in fact rely upon it; (8) and was thereby induced to act; (9) to | 1 | 1 |
Dugan v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2009Dugan v. Jones, 615 P.2d 1239, 1246 (Utah 1980) (emphasis added). 39 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coroles v. Sabey
green
2 sentences2013Coroles v. Saubey, 2003 UT App 339, ¶ 28 , 79 P.3d 974 ; see also Webster v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 2012 UT App 321, ¶ 19 , 290 P.3d 930 ("Rule 9 requires that a plaintiff not only allege facts to establish the elements of a fraud claim but also recite [tlhe relevant surrounding facts, such as the identity of the person who made the alleged misrepresentation[ ] and the time and location at which it was uttered." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir.1990) (explaining that the particularity requirement of the analogous rule 9 2013Coroles v. Saubey, 2003 UT App 339, ¶ 28 , 79 P.3d 974 ; see also Webster v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 2012 UT App 321, ¶ 19 , 290 P.3d 930 ("Rule 9 requires that a plaintiff not only allege facts to establish the elements of a fraud claim but also recite [tlhe relevant surrounding facts, such as the identity of the person who made the alleged misrepresentation[ ] and the time and location at which it was uttered." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir.1990) (explaining that the particularity requirement of the analogous rule 9 | 2 | 2012–2013 |
Armed Forces Insurance Exchange v. Harrison
green
2 sentences2015Exch. v. Harrison, 2003 UT 14, ¶ 16 , 70 P.3d 35 (reiterating that, in the context of a motion for summary judgment, conclusory allegations of those elements, unsupported by relevant surrounding facts, are insufficient). 111 Here, Fidelity's complaint fails to allege the elements of a fraud claim with the particularity our rules require. 2015Exch. v. Harrison, 2003 UT 14, ¶ 16 , 70 P.3d 35 (reiterating that, in the context of a motion for summary judgment, conclusory allegations of those elements, unsupported by relevant surrounding facts, are insufficient). 111 Here, Fidelity's complaint fails to allege the elements of a fraud claim with the particularity our rules require. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Pratt v. Nelson
green
2 sentences2012As discussed above, to show that the court committed plain error, Mr. Goings must show that "() an error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful." Pratt, 2007 UT 41, ¶ 16 , 164 P.3d 366 (alteration omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). . 2012As discussed above, to show that the court committed plain error, Mr. Goings must show that "() an error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful." Pratt, 2007 UT 41, ¶ 16 , 164 P.3d 366 (alteration omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.