Utah Code » Title 63G, Chapter 4 — Administrative Procedures Act; part 63G-4-2 — Adjudicative Proceedings
Utah Code

Utah Code § 63G-4-208 (2026)

Procedures for formal adjudicative proceedings -- Orders

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

In formal adjudicative proceedings:

Within a reasonable time after the hearing, or after the filing of any posthearing documents permitted by the presiding officer, or within the time required by any applicable statute or rule of the agency, the presiding officer shall sign and issue an order that includes:
a statement of the presiding officer's findings of fact based exclusively on the evidence of record in the adjudicative proceedings or on facts officially noted;
a statement of the presiding officer's conclusions of law;
a statement of the reasons for the presiding officer's decision;
a statement of any relief ordered by the agency;
a notice of the right to apply for reconsideration;
a notice of any right to administrative or judicial review of the order available to aggrieved parties; and
the time limits applicable to any reconsideration or review.
The presiding officer may use the presiding officer's experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge to evaluate the evidence.
A finding of fact that was contested may not be based solely on hearsay evidence unless that evidence is admissible under the Utah Rules of Evidence.
This section does not preclude the presiding officer from issuing interim orders to:
notify the parties of further hearings;
notify the parties of provisional rulings on a portion of the issues presented; or
otherwise provide for the fair and efficient conduct of the adjudicative proceeding.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2011–2020 · leading case: Danny's Drywall v. Labor Comm'n, 2014 UT App 277 (Utah Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Danny's Drywall v. Labor Comm'n, 2014 UT App 277 (Utah Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “120 Employer's argument that the medical panel improperly considered extra-record evidence relies on Utah Code section 63G-4-208, which provides that in formal adjudicative proceedings, the presiding officer shall issue an order with "findings of fact based exclusively on the…”
Onysko v. Dept. of Envntl. Quality, 2020 UT App 51 (Utah Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-208(2) (LexisNexis 2019).”
Olsen v. Labor Com'n, 2011 UT App 70 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “¶ 12 Finally, Olsen argues that his due process rights were violated when the Commission took over thirty-eight months to issue a decision in his case, despite language in the Utah Administrative Procedures Act requiring agencies to issue decisions "[w]ithin a reasonable time…”
Uintah Cnty. v. Dep't of Workforce Servs., 320 P.3d 1103 (Utah Ct. App. 2014). “, Claimant's testimony of what he was told by the medical officer). See Utah Code Ann.”
A & B Mech. Contractors v. Labor Comm'n, 311 P.3d 528 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “(alteration in original) (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-208(1) (LexisNexis 2008)), a party that fails to bring the issue of delay to the Commission's attention cannot claim on judicial review that its due process rights were violated, see id.”
Wintle-Butts v. Career Serv. Review Off., 2013 UT App 187 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). “§ 63G-4-208. Wintle-Butts then timely filed a petition for review within thirty days after the Administrator issued his decision.”
— Utah Code § 63G-4-208(1) — 2 cases
Olsen v. Labor Com'n, 2011 UT App 70 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 12 Finally, Olsen argues that his due process rights were violated when the Commission took over thirty-eight months to issue a decision in his case, despite language in the Utah Administrative Procedures Act requiring agencies to issue decisions "[w]ithin a reasonable time…”
A & B Mech. Contractors v. Labor Comm'n, 311 P.3d 528 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). “(alteration in original) (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-208(1) (LexisNexis 2008)), a party that fails to bring the issue of delay to the Commission's attention cannot claim on judicial review that its due process rights were violated, see id.”
— Utah Code § 63G-4-208(2) — 1 case
Onysko v. Dept. of Envntl. Quality, 2020 UT App 51 (Utah Ct. App. 2020). “Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-208(2) (LexisNexis 2019).”
— Utah Code § 63G-4-208(3) — 2 cases
Uintah Cnty. v. Dep't of Workforce Servs., 320 P.3d 1103 (Utah Ct. App. 2014). “, Claimant's testimony of what he was told by the medical officer). See Utah Code Ann.”
Onysko v. Dept. of Envntl. Quality, 2020 UT App 51 (Utah Ct. App. 2020). “Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-208(2) (LexisNexis 2019).”
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.