Utah Code

Utah Code § 78B-7-108 (2026)

Mutual protective orders

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A court may not grant a mutual order or mutual civil protective orders to opposing parties, unless each party:

files an independent petition against the other for a civil protective order, and both petitions are served;

makes a showing at a due process civil protective order hearing of abuse or domestic violence committed by the other party; and

demonstrates the abuse or domestic violence did not occur in self-defense.

If the court issues mutual civil protective orders, the court shall include specific findings of all elements of Subsection (1) in the court order justifying the entry of the court order.

Except as provided in Subsection (3)(b), a court may not grant a civil protective order to a petitioner who is the respondent or defendant subject to a protective order, child protective order, or ex parte child protective order:

issued under:

Title 77, Chapter 36, Cohabitant Abuse Procedures Act;

Title 80, Utah Juvenile Code;

Part 6, Cohabitant Abuse Protective Orders; or

Part 8, Criminal Protective Orders; or

enforceable under Part 3, Uniform Interstate Enforcement of Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act.

The court may grant a civil protective order to a petitioner described in Subsection (3)(a) if:

the court determines that the requirements of Subsection (1) are met; and

the same court that issued the protective order, child protective order, or ex parte child protective order issues the civil protective order against the respondent; or

if the matter is before a subsequent court, the subsequent court determines it would be impractical for the original court to consider the matter or confers with the court that issued the protective order, child protective order, or ex parte child protective order.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2014–2017 · leading case: Meyer v. Aposhian, 2016 UT App 47 (Utah Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Meyer v. Aposhian, 2016 UT App 47 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “§ 78B-7-108 (LexisNexis 2012).) The court specifically considered 'abuse and two implicated categories of domestic violence-ecriminal trespass 'and stalking.”

Patole v. Marksberry, 329 P.3d 53 (Utah Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-7-108 notes to decisions (LexisNexis 2012) ("To obtain a protective order under [the CAA], petitioner was required only to demonstrate: (1) she is or was a cohabitant of the respondent .”

Jensen v. Ruflin, 2017 UT App 174 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-7-108 (LexisNexis 2012).”

— Utah Code § 78B-7-108(1) — 2 cases

Meyer v. Aposhian, 2016 UT App 47 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “§ 78B-7-108 (LexisNexis 2012).) The court specifically considered 'abuse and two implicated categories of domestic violence-ecriminal trespass 'and stalking.”

Patole v. Marksberry, 329 P.3d 53 (Utah Ct. App. 2014). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-7-108 notes to decisions (LexisNexis 2012) ("To obtain a protective order under [the CAA], petitioner was required only to demonstrate: (1) she is or was a cohabitant of the respondent .”

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.