Utah Code » Title 10, Chapter 3 — Municipal Government; part 10-3-10 — Civil Service Commission
Utah Code

Utah Code § 10-3-1012.5 (2026)

Appeal to Court of Appeals -- Scope of review

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any final action or order of the commission may be appealed to the Court of Appeals for review.
The notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days of the issuance of the final action or order of the commission.
The review by Court of Appeals shall be on the record of the commission and shall be for the purpose of determining if the commission has abused its discretion or exceeded its authority.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: Lucas v. Murray City Civil Serv. Comm'n, 949 P.2d 746 (Utah Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lucas v. Murray City Civil Serv. Comm'n, 949 P.2d 746 (Utah Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “" Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-1012.5 (1996); Salt Lake City Corp.”
Joseph v. Salt Lake City Civil Serv. Comm'n, 2002 UT App 254 (Utah Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “However, Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-1012.5 (1999) provides an express grant of jurisdiction to this court for the specific purpose of reviewing decisions made *15 by municipal commissions.”
Hatton-Ward v. Salt Lake City Corp., 828 P.2d 1071 (Utah Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “The discharged person shall be entitled to appear in person and to have counsel and a public hearing.”
Ogden City Corp. v. Harmon, 2005 UT App 274 (Utah Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “” Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-1012.5 (2003). We review the Commission’s decision “for the purpose of determining if the [Cjommission has abused its discretion or exceeded its authority.”
West Valley City v. Coyle, 2016 UT App 149 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “” ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶7 The City contends that the Commission abused its discretion and exceeded its authority in the following ways: first, by failing to make necessary findings of fact and failing to consider a number of accusations against Coyle in reaching its…”
Kelly v. Salt Lake City Civil Serv. Comm'n, 8 P.3d 1048 (Utah Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Strangely, section 10-3-1012.5, providing that appeals from municipal civil service commissions come to the court of appeals, is titled "Appeal to district court.”
Salt Lake City Corp. v. Salt Lake City Civil Serv. Comm'n, 908 P.2d 871 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “2 STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the Commission’s final action or order “for the purpose of determining if the commission has abused its discretion or exceeded its authority.”
Leavitt v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2019 UT App 70 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “" Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-1012.5 (LexisNexis 2015).”
Hollenbach v. Salt Lake City Civil Serv. Comm'n, 2013 UT App 62 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “See Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-1012.5 . When a court lacks jurisdiction, it "retains only the authority to dismiss the action.”
Hollenbach v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2016 UT App 64 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-1012.5 (LexisNexis 2015).”
Cieply v. Weber Cnty. Career Serv., 2024 UT App 36 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “As relevant to our review, the only notable difference on this issue between the statutory schemes discussed in note 8 above is the standard of review to be applied by this court.”
King v. Provo City Civil Serv. Comm'n, 2024 UT App 134 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “(quoting Utah Code § 10-3-1012.5). Therefore, we will “not disturb the Commission’s decision to uphold the Chief’s decision to terminate [King’s] employment unless it exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.