Utah Code » Title 61, Chapter 1 — Utah Uniform Securities Act
Utah Code

Utah Code § 61-1-27 (2026)

Construction of chapter

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter may be so construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it and to coordinate the interpretation and administration of this chapter with the related federal regulation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1993–2013 · leading case: State v. Larsen, 865 P.2d 1355 (Utah 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Larsen, 865 P.2d 1355 (Utah 1993). · cites it 14× “” Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-27 . Larsen asserts that this section was intended to bind state judicial interpretations of Utah’s antifraud provisions to the United States Supreme Court’s interpretations of similar federal securities provisions.”
Fibro Trust, Inc. v. Brahman Fin., Inc., 1999 UT 13 (Utah 1999). · cites it 6× “” Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-27 (1997). 7 . In response to APS’s directed verdict motion, Fibro argued that APS could not prove a section 61-1-1(3) violation because such a violation required proof of a victim.”
Gohler v. Wood, 919 P.2d 561 (Utah 1996). · cites it 4× “Finally, we note that our reading of these sections comports with the legislature's suggestion that the Utah Act "may be so construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it and to coordinate the interpretation and…”
Legacy Resources, Inc. v. Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc., 322 P.3d 683 (Utah 2013). · cites it 4× “We interpret the Utah statute to incorporate the same essential standard, both because our statute instructs us to “coordinate the interpretation and administration” of our securities law with “related federal regulation,” Utah Code § 61-1-27, and because the text of our statute…”
State v. Shepherd, 989 P.2d 503 (Utah Ct. App. 1999). “§ 61 — 1— 13(27) (Supp.1999). Furthermore, the Act explicitly permits the construction of its terms to be coordinated with federal interpretations of related federal regulations.”
Wenneman v. Brown, 49 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (D. Utah 1999). · cites it 2× “” Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-27 . As such, the Court finds that plaintiffs fail to allege secondary liability under the Utah Act for the same reasons outlined above with respect to the issue of “control” under the federal counterpart.”
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.