Utah Code » Title 68, Chapter 3 — Construction
Utah Code

Utah Code § 68-3-12 (2026)

Rules of construction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In the construction of a statute in the Utah Code, the general rules listed in this Subsection (1) shall be observed, unless the construction would be:
inconsistent with the manifest intent of the Legislature; or
repugnant to the context of the statute.
The singular includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular.
A word used in one gender includes the other gender.
A word used in the present tense includes the future tense.
In accordance with Title 46, Chapter 4, Part 5, Electronic Records in Government Agencies, a word related to the medium used in the provision of a government service may include an electronic or other medium.
"Include," "includes," or "including" means that the items listed are not an exclusive list, unless the word "only" or similar language is used to expressly indicate that the list is an exclusive list.
"May" means that an action is authorized or permissive.
"May not" means that an action is not authorized and is prohibited.
"Must" means, depending on the context in which it is used, that:
an action is required or mandatory;
an action or result is compelled by necessity;
an item is indispensable; or
an action or event is a condition precedent to:
the authority to act;
a prohibition;
the accrual or loss of a right; or
the imposition or removal of an obligation.
"Shall" means that an action is required or mandatory.
Except as provided in Subsection (2)(b) or (c), the use of the following terms in the Utah Code is strongly discouraged:
"shall not";
"should not";
"must not"; or
"but not limited to" after "include," "includes," or "including."
A term described in Subsection (2)(a) may be used when unusual circumstances exist that require the use of the term, including the use of the term:
in an interstate compact; or
to ensure consistency with a federal law or rule.
Except as provided in Subsection (2)(c)(ii), the use of the word "should" is strongly discouraged.
The word "should" may be used to:
refer to a recommended action, including a provision that a person shall or may recommend whether an action "should" be taken;
indicate an expected standard of knowledge, including a provision that a person "should" know:
whether a fact exists; or
that an action is likely to cause a specified result; or
refer to a determination as to whether an action "should" have occurred.
The use of the word "must" is strongly discouraged when the term "shall" can be used in its place.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Anderson v. Bell, 2010 UT 47 (Utah 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Anderson v. Bell, 2010 UT 47 (Utah 2010). · cites it 14× “" Utah Code Ann. § 68-3-12 (@2)(w) & -12(2)(cc).”
In re Gestational Agreement, 2019 UT 40 (Utah 2019). · cites it 10× “” See UTAH CODE § 68-3-12. Although the term “repugnant” is often used to describe matters that are “distasteful, objectionable, or offensive,” Repugnant, DICTIONARY.”
Jensen v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 679 P.2d 903 (Utah 1984). · cites it 10× “, 1953, § 68-3-12, which provides rules for construction of Utah statutes.”
Garfield Cnty. v. United States, 2017 UT 41 (Utah 2017). · cites it 5× “” See Revised Statutes of Utah § 65-2-2498(5) (1898); UTAH CODE § 68-3-12(2)(o) (2004). But it is not clear whether the United States is a “body politic.”
Lay v. Lay, 2018 UT App 137 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “" Utah Code Ann. § 68-3-12 (1)(g) (LexisNexis 2016); see also May , Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.”
State v. Bradshaw, 2004 UT App 298 (Utah Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “Consequently, the trial court concluded that the defrauding of all eleven of Bradshaw's victims must be treated as a single scheme or artifice under the statute.”
State v. Richins, 2025 UT 10 (Utah 2025). · cites it 7× “¶57 The Parties urge us to conclude otherwise, first arguing that under Utah Code subsection 68-3-12(1), the Legislature has 17 STATE v.”
Mallory v. Brigham Young Univ., 2014 UT 27 (Utah 2014). · cites it 4× “Section 68-3-12(1)(a) further mandates that this rule of construction “shall be observed, unless the construction would be: (i) inconsistent with the manifest intent of the Legislature; or (ii) repugnant to the context of the statute.”
Olsen v. Samuel McIntyre Inv. Co., 956 P.2d 257 (Utah 1998). · cites it 4× “” Utah Code Ann. § 68-3-12 (2)(cc). Moreover, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “writing” as “[t]he expression of ideas by letters visible to the eye.”
Iadanza v. Mather, 820 F. Supp. 1371 (D. Utah 1993). · cites it 8× “Utah Code Ann. § 68-3-12 (Supp.1992). The Utah Supreme Court has looked to the general definitions found in section 68-3-12 to define otherwise undefined terms in other statutes, e.”
C.E.L. v. T.L. (In Re Adoption of B.N.A.), 2018 UT App 224 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Father emphasizes the statute's use of the word "shall," which is usually interpreted as a mandatory command, see Utah Code Ann. § 68-3-12 (1)(j) (LexisNexis 2016) (defining "shall" as meaning "that an action is required or mandatory"), and argues that adoption petitioners are…”
Foye v. Labor Comm'n, 2018 UT App 124 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Salt Lake County , 659 P.2d 1030 , 1035 (Utah 1983) (stating that the word "shall" employed in statutes "is usually presumed mandatory").”
Show all 53 citing cases →
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(1) — 4 cases
In re Gestational Agreement, 2019 UT 40 (Utah 2019). “” See UTAH CODE § 68-3-12. Although the term “repugnant” is often used to describe matters that are “distasteful, objectionable, or offensive,” Repugnant, DICTIONARY.”
State v. Richins, 2025 UT 10 (Utah 2025). “¶57 The Parties urge us to conclude otherwise, first arguing that under Utah Code subsection 68-3-12(1), the Legislature has 17 STATE v.”
State v. Bradshaw, 2004 UT App 298 (Utah Ct. App. 2004). “Consequently, the trial court concluded that the defrauding of all eleven of Bradshaw's victims must be treated as a single scheme or artifice under the statute.”
Brent Brown Dealerships v. Tax Comm'n, Motor Veh. Enf't Div., 139 P.3d 296 (Utah Ct. App. 2006).
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(1)(a) — 5 cases
Mallory v. Brigham Young Univ., 2014 UT 27 (Utah 2014). “Section 68-3-12(1)(a) further mandates that this rule of construction “shall be observed, unless the construction would be: (i) inconsistent with the manifest intent of the Legislature; or (ii) repugnant to the context of the statute.”
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. FPA West Point, LLC, 304 P.3d 810 (Utah 2012).
In re Gestational Agreement, 2019 UT 40 (Utah 2019). “” See UTAH CODE § 68-3-12. Although the term “repugnant” is often used to describe matters that are “distasteful, objectionable, or offensive,” Repugnant, DICTIONARY.”
State v. Richins, 2025 UT 10 (Utah 2025). “¶57 The Parties urge us to conclude otherwise, first arguing that under Utah Code subsection 68-3-12(1), the Legislature has 17 STATE v.”
In re Est. of Davies, 2025 UT 36 (Utah 2025).
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(1)(a)(i) — 1 case
State v. Richins, 2025 UT 10 (Utah 2025). “¶57 The Parties urge us to conclude otherwise, first arguing that under Utah Code subsection 68-3-12(1), the Legislature has 17 STATE v.”
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(1)(b) — 1 case
Russian v. Liberty Mut. Ins. (D. Utah 2025).
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(1)(f) — 4 cases
Mallory v. Brigham Young Univ., 2014 UT 27 (Utah 2014). “Section 68-3-12(1)(a) further mandates that this rule of construction “shall be observed, unless the construction would be: (i) inconsistent with the manifest intent of the Legislature; or (ii) repugnant to the context of the statute.”
Miller Theatres v. Tax Comm'n, 2024 UT 8 (Utah 2024).
State v. McManigal, 2025 UT App 192 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
Aston v. Chronicle-Progress, 2026 UT 7 (Utah 2026).
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(1)(g) — 2 cases
In re Est. of Heater, 2021 UT 66 (Utah 2021).
In re Est. of John Clifford Heater, 2020 UT App 70 (Utah Ct. App. 2020).
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(1)(h) — 3 cases
Schleger v. State, 2018 UT App 84 (Utah Ct. App. 2018).
M Squared Enter. v. St. George, 2024 UT App 50 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
In re Est. of Davies, 2025 UT 36 (Utah 2025).
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(1)(j) — 2 cases
John Kuhni & Sons Inc. v. Labor Comm'n, 2018 UT App 6 (Utah Ct. App. 2018).
ICS Corr. v. Procurement Policy Bd., 2022 UT 24 (Utah 2022).
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(10) — 1 case
Woolley v. Wycoff, 273 P.2d 181 (Utah 1954).
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(17) — 1 case
State v. Ward, 571 P.2d 1343 (Utah 1977).
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(2) — 3 cases
Anderson v. Bell, 2010 UT 47 (Utah 2010). “" Utah Code Ann. § 68-3-12 (@2)(w) & -12(2)(cc).”
Colman v. Schwendiman, 680 P.2d 29 (Utah 1984).
In Re Williamson, 43 B.R. 813 (Bankr. D. Utah 1984).
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(2)(o) — 1 case
Garfield Cnty. v. United States, 2017 UT 41 (Utah 2017). “” See Revised Statutes of Utah § 65-2-2498(5) (1898); UTAH CODE § 68-3-12(2)(o) (2004). But it is not clear whether the United States is a “body politic.”
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(2)(r) — 1 case
Matter of Est. of Erickson, 806 P.2d 1186 (Utah 1991).
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(6) — 2 cases
Jensen v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 679 P.2d 903 (Utah 1984). “, 1953, § 68-3-12, which provides rules for construction of Utah statutes.”
David v. Indus. Com'n of Utah, 649 P.2d 82 (Utah 1982).
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(g) — 1 case
Washington v. State, 2026 UT App 27 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 68-3-12(j) — 1 case
Washington v. State, 2026 UT App 27 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
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.