It is hereby declared that the practice of discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, pregnancy, religion, ancestry, or national origin in business establishments or places of public accommodation or in enterprises regulated by the state endangers the health, safety, and general welfare of this state and its inhabitants; and that such discrimination in business establishments or places of public accommodation or in enterprises regulated by the state, violates the public policy of this state. It is the purpose of this act to assure all citizens full and equal availability of all goods, services and facilities offered by business establishments and places of public accommodation and enterprises regulated by the state without discrimination because of race, color, sex, pregnancy, religion, ancestry, or national origin. The rules of common law that statutes in derogation thereof shall be strictly construed has no application to this act. This act shall be liberally construed with a view to promote the policy and purposes of the act and to promote justice. The remedies provided herein are not exclusive but are in addition to any other remedies available at law or equity.
Notes of Decisions
World Peace Movement of America v. Newspaper Agency Corp. (1994)
utah · cites it 10×
“…discrimination lawsuit against NAC under the Utah Civil Rights Act (the "Act"). Utah Code Ann. §§ 13-7-1 to -4 (1992). World Peace Movement's amended complaint, filed May 21, 1992, alleged that NAC unlawfully rejected the advertisement because it "offended or might…”
Elks Lodges No. 719 v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (1995)
utah · cites it 8×
“George-Dixie Lodge 1743">Beynon , we held that the Utah Civil Rights Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 13-7-1 to -4 (UCRA), proscribing discrimination based on *1192 race, color, sex, religion, ancestry, or national origin, applied to the St.”
Beynon v. St. George-Dixie Lodge 1743 (1993)
utah · cites it 4×
“…label="4"> 4 . Utah Code Ann. §§ 13-7-1 to -4. 5 . Utah R.Civ.P. 56(c); Russell v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc., <span class="c”
Sampson v. HB Boys (2024)
utahctapp · cites it 5×
“See Utah Code §§ 13-7-1 to -4. Sampson also alleged that HBB was vicariously liable for Shift Supervisor’s behavior under the common law doctrine of respondeat superior.”
Adamson v. City of Provo, Utah (1993)
utd · cites it 2×
“Incidentally, even a civil rights claim under Utah’s Civil Rights Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 13-7-1 to -4 (1992), is granted a three-year statute of limitations.”
Kaveh v. Starbucks Corporation (2025)
utd · cites it 2×
“…in the plaintiff’s favor.28 But 22 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a, et seq. 23 Utah Code §§ 13-7-1, et seq. 24 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 39–134, Doc. No. 5.) 25 (Id. at 18.) 26 (See Mot. 23, Doc. No. 8.)”
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.