Utah Code
Utah Code § 63G-4-403 (2026)
Judicial review -- Formal adjudicative proceedings -- Final agency action
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
As provided by statute, the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review a final agency action resulting from a formal adjudicative proceeding originating from an entity described in Sections 78A-3-102 and 78A-4-103.
An order or decree from a formal adjudicative proceeding is a final agency action if:
the administrative decision-making has reached a stage where judicial review will not disrupt the orderly process of adjudication;
rights or obligations have been determined by, or legal consequences flow from, the order or decree; and
the order or decree, in whole or in part, is not preliminary, preparatory, procedural, or intermediate with regard to subsequent agency action.
To seek judicial review of final agency action resulting from formal adjudicative proceedings, the petitioner shall file a petition for review of agency action with the appropriate appellate court in the form required by the appellate rules of the appropriate appellate court.
The appellate rules of the appropriate appellate court shall govern all additional filings and proceedings in the appellate court.
The contents, transmittal, and filing of the agency's record for judicial review of formal adjudicative proceedings are governed by the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, except that:
all parties to the review proceedings may stipulate to shorten, summarize, or organize the record; and
the appellate court may tax the cost of preparing transcripts and copies for the record:
against a party who unreasonably refuses to stipulate to shorten, summarize, or organize the record; or
according to any other provision of law.
The appellate court shall grant relief only if, on the basis of the agency's record, it determines that a person seeking judicial review has been substantially prejudiced by any of the following:
the agency action, or the statute or rule on which the agency action is based, is unconstitutional on its face or as applied;
the agency has acted beyond the jurisdiction conferred by any statute;
the agency has not decided all of the issues requiring resolution;
the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law;
the agency has engaged in an unlawful procedure or decision-making process, or has failed to follow prescribed procedure;
the persons taking the agency action were illegally constituted as a decision-making body or were subject to disqualification;
the agency action is based upon a determination of fact, made or implied by the agency, that is not supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record before the court; or
the agency action is:
an abuse of the discretion delegated to the agency by statute;
contrary to a rule of the agency;
contrary to the agency's prior practice, unless the agency justifies the inconsistency by giving facts and reasons that demonstrate a fair and rational basis for the inconsistency; or
otherwise arbitrary or capricious.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 96
cases (19 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case: Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 38 (Utah 2013).
Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 38 (Utah 2013). “" 16 We derived these standards from what is now section 63G-4-403 of UAPA, which addresses judicial review of formal adjudicative proceedings.”
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Env't v. Exec. Dir. of the Utah Dep't of Env't Quality, 391 P.3d 148 (Utah 2016). “We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to Utah Code sections 63G-4-403 and 78A-3-102(3)(b). STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶ 12 Our authority to review final agency adjudications is set forth in part 4 of the Administrative Procedures Act.”
Rueda v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2017 UT 58 (Utah 2017). “UTAH CODE§ 63G-4-403. The court of appeals certified the case for transfer to this court.”
Petersen v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2017 UT 87 (Utah 2017). “7 If it is a statute of repose, we must address whether it survives scrutiny under our Open Courts Clause jurisprudence. ¶ 10 We conclude that section 35-1-65 is not a statute of limitation, but that, in any event, it does not operate to abrogate a…”
Macfarlane v. CSRO, 2019 UT App 133 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “Second, Macfarlane contends that the CSRO erred in concluding that POST did not violate its prior practice regarding Garrity interviews. Finally, he contends that the CSRO failed to make adequate findings on the proportionality and consistency of DPS’s decision to terminate.”
Waite v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2017 UT 86 (Utah 2017). “Because of the importance of the constitutional question and the possibility that lessons remain for us to learn from the historical record, stare decisis principles should not prevent us from revisiting the Open Courts Clause's meaning in the appropriate case.”
Foye v. Labor Comm'n, 2018 UT App 124 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “As a result, he contends that the medical panel's report was without foundation, and he requests that we set aside the Board's dismissal of his claim and instruct the Commission to convene a new medical panel with physicians specializing in the treatment of his condition.”
Murray v. Labor Comm'n, 2012 UT App 33 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-403(4) (2011). The supreme court has held that the several grounds for judicial relief set forth in what is now section 68G-4-408(4) necessarily "incorporate[ ] standards that appellate courts are to employ when reviewing allegations of agency error.”
Ramos v. Cobblestone Centre, 2020 UT 55 (Utah 2020). “Second, the claimant may appeal the agency’s final decision to the courts, pursuant to Utah Code section 63G-4-403. 42 Id. § 34A-2-601(2)(g)(ii).”
J.P. Furlong Co. v. Bd. of Oil, Gas & Mining, 2018 UT 22 (Utah 2018). “" UTAH CODE § 63G-4-403(4). A decision is supported by substantial evidence if there is a quantum and quality of relevant evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion.”
Smith v. Workforce Appeals Bd., Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2011 UT App 68 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “However, our review is limited to the record evidence, see Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-403(4) (2008) (noting that the appellate court shall make determinations "on the basis of the agency's record"), and we do not consider these assertions of counsel as part of that record, see…”
Fastenal v. Labor Comm'n, 2020 UT App 53 (Utah Ct. App. 2020). “3d 26 (cleaned up); see also Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-403(4) (LexisNexis 2019).”
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(1) — 16 cases
Petersen v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2017 UT 87 (Utah 2017). “7 If it is a statute of repose, we must address whether it survives scrutiny under our Open Courts Clause jurisprudence. ¶ 10 We conclude that section 35-1-65 is not a statute of limitation, but that, in any event, it does not operate to abrogate a…”
Waite v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2017 UT 86 (Utah 2017). “Because of the importance of the constitutional question and the possibility that lessons remain for us to learn from the historical record, stare decisis principles should not prevent us from revisiting the Open Courts Clause's meaning in the appropriate case.”
Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 38 (Utah 2013). “" 16 We derived these standards from what is now section 63G-4-403 of UAPA, which addresses judicial review of formal adjudicative proceedings.”
Macfarlane v. CSRO, 2019 UT App 133 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “Second, Macfarlane contends that the CSRO erred in concluding that POST did not violate its prior practice regarding Garrity interviews. Finally, he contends that the CSRO failed to make adequate findings on the proportionality and consistency of DPS’s decision to terminate.”
Hoffman v. Labor Comm'n, 2023 UT App 96 (Utah Ct. App. 2023).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(2) — 1 case
Bellucci v. Labor Comm'n, 2011 UT App 287 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(2)(a) — 5 cases
Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 38 (Utah 2013). “" 16 We derived these standards from what is now section 63G-4-403 of UAPA, which addresses judicial review of formal adjudicative proceedings.”
Benge v. Labor Comm'n, 2019 UT App 164 (Utah Ct. App. 2019).
C.R. England v. Hakem, 2021 UT App 108 (Utah Ct. App. 2021).
BMS Ltd. 1999, Inc. v. Dep't of Workforce Servs., 327 P.3d 578 (Utah Ct. App. 2014).
Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 38 (Utah 2013).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(2)(b) — 2 cases
Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 38 (Utah 2013). “" 16 We derived these standards from what is now section 63G-4-403 of UAPA, which addresses judicial review of formal adjudicative proceedings.”
Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 38 (Utah 2013).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(3) — 1 case
Taylor-west Weber Water Improvement v. Olds, 2009 UT 86 (Utah 2009).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(4) — 29 cases
Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 38 (Utah 2013). “" 16 We derived these standards from what is now section 63G-4-403 of UAPA, which addresses judicial review of formal adjudicative proceedings.”
Fastenal v. Labor Comm'n, 2020 UT App 53 (Utah Ct. App. 2020). “3d 26 (cleaned up); see also Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-403(4) (LexisNexis 2019).”
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Env't v. Exec. Dir. of the Utah Dep't of Env't Quality, 391 P.3d 148 (Utah 2016). “We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to Utah Code sections 63G-4-403 and 78A-3-102(3)(b). STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶ 12 Our authority to review final agency adjudications is set forth in part 4 of the Administrative Procedures Act.”
Smith v. Workforce Appeals Bd., Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2011 UT App 68 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “However, our review is limited to the record evidence, see Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-403(4) (2008) (noting that the appellate court shall make determinations "on the basis of the agency's record"), and we do not consider these assertions of counsel as part of that record, see…”
Foye v. Labor Comm'n, 2018 UT App 124 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “As a result, he contends that the medical panel's report was without foundation, and he requests that we set aside the Board's dismissal of his claim and instruct the Commission to convene a new medical panel with physicians specializing in the treatment of his condition.”
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(4)(a) — 7 cases
Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 38 (Utah 2013). “" 16 We derived these standards from what is now section 63G-4-403 of UAPA, which addresses judicial review of formal adjudicative proceedings.”
Petersen v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2017 UT 87 (Utah 2017). “7 If it is a statute of repose, we must address whether it survives scrutiny under our Open Courts Clause jurisprudence. ¶ 10 We conclude that section 35-1-65 is not a statute of limitation, but that, in any event, it does not operate to abrogate a…”
Waite v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2017 UT 86 (Utah 2017). “Because of the importance of the constitutional question and the possibility that lessons remain for us to learn from the historical record, stare decisis principles should not prevent us from revisiting the Open Courts Clause's meaning in the appropriate case.”
Ramos v. Cobblestone Centre, 2020 UT 55 (Utah 2020). “Second, the claimant may appeal the agency’s final decision to the courts, pursuant to Utah Code section 63G-4-403. 42 Id. § 34A-2-601(2)(g)(ii).”
Phillips v. Dep't of Com., Div. of Sec., 2017 UT App 84 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(4)(b)(i) — 2 cases
Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 38 (Utah 2013). “" 16 We derived these standards from what is now section 63G-4-403 of UAPA, which addresses judicial review of formal adjudicative proceedings.”
Benson v. Peace Officer Standards & Training Council, 2011 UT App 220 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(4)(b)(ii) — 1 case
Bear Hollow Restoration, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Utah, 2012 UT 18 (Utah 2012).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(4)(c) — 2 cases
Benson v. Peace Officer Standards & Training Council, 2011 UT App 220 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).
Mahoney v. Workforce Servs., 2022 UT App 50 (Utah Ct. App. 2022).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(4)(d) — 30 cases
Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 38 (Utah 2013). “" 16 We derived these standards from what is now section 63G-4-403 of UAPA, which addresses judicial review of formal adjudicative proceedings.”
Rueda v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2017 UT 58 (Utah 2017). “UTAH CODE§ 63G-4-403. The court of appeals certified the case for transfer to this court.”
Petersen v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2017 UT 87 (Utah 2017). “7 If it is a statute of repose, we must address whether it survives scrutiny under our Open Courts Clause jurisprudence. ¶ 10 We conclude that section 35-1-65 is not a statute of limitation, but that, in any event, it does not operate to abrogate a…”
Hughes Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2014 UT 3 (Utah 2014).
Waite v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2017 UT 86 (Utah 2017). “Because of the importance of the constitutional question and the possibility that lessons remain for us to learn from the historical record, stare decisis principles should not prevent us from revisiting the Open Courts Clause's meaning in the appropriate case.”
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(4)(e) — 3 cases
Smith v. Workforce Appeals Bd., Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2011 UT App 68 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “However, our review is limited to the record evidence, see Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-403(4) (2008) (noting that the appellate court shall make determinations "on the basis of the agency's record"), and we do not consider these assertions of counsel as part of that record, see…”
J.P. Furlong Co. v. Bd. of Oil, Gas & Mining, 2018 UT 22 (Utah 2018). “" UTAH CODE § 63G-4-403(4). A decision is supported by substantial evidence if there is a quantum and quality of relevant evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion.”
Wright v. Workforce Appeals Bd., 2011 UT App 137 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(4)(g) — 33 cases
Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 38 (Utah 2013). “" 16 We derived these standards from what is now section 63G-4-403 of UAPA, which addresses judicial review of formal adjudicative proceedings.”
Valdez v. Labor Comm'n, 2017 UT App 64 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
ABCO Enter. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 2009 UT 36 (Utah 2009).
Graphic Packaging Intl v. Labor Comm'n, 2021 UT App 82 (Utah Ct. App. 2021).
Macfarlane v. CSRO, 2019 UT App 133 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “Second, Macfarlane contends that the CSRO erred in concluding that POST did not violate its prior practice regarding Garrity interviews. Finally, he contends that the CSRO failed to make adequate findings on the proportionality and consistency of DPS’s decision to terminate.”
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(4)(h) — 2 cases
Christensen v. Tax Comm'n, 2020 UT 45 (Utah 2020).
KYCO Servs. v. Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2018 UT App 174 (Utah Ct. App. 2018).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(4)(h)(i) — 6 cases
Murray v. Labor Comm'n, 2012 UT App 33 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-403(4) (2011). The supreme court has held that the several grounds for judicial relief set forth in what is now section 68G-4-408(4) necessarily "incorporate[ ] standards that appellate courts are to employ when reviewing allegations of agency error.”
JP's Landscaping v. Labor Comm'n, 2017 UT App 59 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
Foye v. Labor Comm'n, 2018 UT App 124 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “As a result, he contends that the medical panel's report was without foundation, and he requests that we set aside the Board's dismissal of his claim and instruct the Commission to convene a new medical panel with physicians specializing in the treatment of his condition.”
Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 38 (Utah 2013).
Cieply v. Weber Cnty. Career Serv., 2024 UT App 36 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(4)(h)(i1) — 1 case
Murray v. Labor Comm'n, 2012 UT App 33 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-403(4) (2011). The supreme court has held that the several grounds for judicial relief set forth in what is now section 68G-4-408(4) necessarily "incorporate[ ] standards that appellate courts are to employ when reviewing allegations of agency error.”
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(4)(h)(iii) — 3 cases
Macfarlane v. CSRO, 2019 UT App 133 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “Second, Macfarlane contends that the CSRO erred in concluding that POST did not violate its prior practice regarding Garrity interviews. Finally, he contends that the CSRO failed to make adequate findings on the proportionality and consistency of DPS’s decision to terminate.”
Bingham v. Workforce Servs., 2022 UT App 110 (Utah Ct. App. 2022).
Friends of Great Salt Lake v. UDEQ, 2023 UT App 58 (Utah Ct. App. 2023).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(5)(d) — 1 case
Anderson v. Dep't of Com., 2025 UT 19 (Utah 2025).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(5)(g) — 1 case
Jones v. Workforce Servs., 2025 UT App 201 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(8) — 1 case
Taylor-West Weber Water Improvement Dist. v. Olds, 224 P.3d 709 (Utah 2009).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(b) — 1 case
Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 38 (Utah 2013). “" 16 We derived these standards from what is now section 63G-4-403 of UAPA, which addresses judicial review of formal adjudicative proceedings.”
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(d4)(g) — 1 case
Erickson v. Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2012 UT App 201 (Utah Ct. App. 2012).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(h)(i) — 2 cases
Onysko v. Dept. of Envntl. Quality, 2020 UT App 51 (Utah Ct. App. 2020).
Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 38 (Utah 2013).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(h)(iv) — 1 case
Cieply v. Weber Cnty. Career Serv., 2024 UT App 36 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
— Utah Code § 63G-4-403(l) — 1 case
Par Elec. & Old Repub. Ins. Co. v. Labor Comm'n, 2017 UT App 169 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
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.