Utah Code
Utah Code § 73-3-15 (2026)
Dismissal of action for review of informal adjudicative proceedings
✓ laws through the 2026 General Session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
An action to review a decision of the state engineer from an informal adjudicative proceeding may be dismissed upon the application of any of the parties upon the grounds provided in Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41 for:
the dismissal of actions generally; and
failure to prosecute the action with diligence.
For the purpose of this section, failure to prosecute a suit to trial within two years after it is filed gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of a lack of diligence.
In evaluating the rebuttable presumption, the court shall consider the totality of the circumstances.
Amended by Chapter 248, 2009 General Session
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1967–2018 · leading case: Jensen v. Morgan, 844 P.2d 287 (Utah 1992).
Jensen v. Morgan, 844 P.2d 287 (Utah 1992). “§ 73-4-11 ? (2) Did the court properly dismiss Civil No. 4975 (his action challenging the decision of the state engineer rejecting his change application) because he failed to prosecute the action to a final judgment within two years as mandated by Utah Code Ann.”
Blake v. Hansen, 782 P.2d 472 (Utah 1989). “Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-15 (1980) (as amended).”
W. Water, LLC v. Olds, 2008 UT 18, 184 P.3d 578. “Third, because we specifically asked the parties to address the applicability and constitutionality of Utah Code section 73-3-15, we explain why we do not reach these issues.”
Pugh v. Draper City, 2005 UT 12, 114 P.3d 546. “2d 141, 143 (Utah 1979) (indicating that in Utah Code section 73-3-15, the words “shall” and “must” are mandatory and not discretionary).”
S & G, INC. v. Morgan, 797 P.2d 1085 (Utah 1990). “” Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-15 (1980). “[T]he ‘trial de novo’ specified in the statute comprehends a trial of all pertinent issues.”
Carbon Canal Co. v. Sanpete Water Users Ass'n, 425 P.2d 405 (Utah 1967). “) Within ten days after entry of the decision thus rendered, a copy of the judgment must be transmitted by the clerk of the district court to the State Engineer (Section 73-3-15). When the district court entered its decree of August 10, 1959, the net result of which was to…”
Utah State Eng'r v. Johnson (In Re Utah Lake & Jordan River), 2018 UT App 109, 427 P.3d 558. “He contends that the objecting parties did not pursue remedies on their objections for over fifteen years, and cites a provision of the Utah Code-section 73-3-15-which he claims supports his assertion that the objections can be dismissed for failure to prosecute diligently.”
Glenwood Irrigation Co. v. Myers, 465 P.2d 1013 (Utah 1970). “This court held that the “trial de novo” provided in Section 73-3-15, comprehended a trial of all pertinent issues to determine whether the party had met his burden of proof.”
Bullock v. Hanks, 452 P.2d 866 (Utah 1969). “Since tlie proceeding in tlie district court is equitable in nature (§ 73-3-15, U.O.A. 1953), the findings of the court will be disturbed only if the evidence clearly preponderates against them.”
Provo City Corp. v. Lambert, 499 P.2d 1296 (Utah 1972). “1953, and for a trial de novo as provided for by Section 73-3-15. In the district court the plaintiff and the defendants filed separate motions for summary judgment.”
Provo City v. Lambert, 545 P.2d 185 (Utah 1976). “The defendants also moved to dismiss the proceeding pursuant to the provisions of Section 73-3-15, U.C.A.1953, which provides in part as follows: The pleadings, practice, and procedure in suits to review decisions of the state engineer shall be the same as in other equity cases.”
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.