State v. Lyman — Court affirms fatal DUI conviction despite medical-event defense
The Utah Court of Appeals held that sufficient evidence supported a fatal negligent-driving conviction and that any speeding-instruction error was harmless.
The Utah Court of Appeals held that sufficient evidence supported a fatal negligent-driving conviction and that any speeding-instruction error was harmless.
The Utah Court of Appeals declined to overrule State v. Heath and affirmed object-rape and sexual-abuse convictions against evidentiary and due-process challenges.
The Utah Court of Appeals held that a court may resolve an ambiguous commercial lease on summary judgment when the admissible extrinsic evidence points only one way.
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed key summary-judgment rulings in a commercial lease dispute while enforcing rule 26 damages-disclosure limits in part.
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed child-sex-abuse convictions after finding waiver, inadequate preservation, and no deficient performance across multiple trial challenges.
The Utah Supreme Court reaffirmed that amended post-conviction claims must satisfy rule 15(c)’s relation-back standard and upheld the PCRA’s one-year deadline.
The Utah Supreme Court held that it could review a post-remand parental-rights judgment but not errors predating the first appeal, then affirmed termination as strictly necessary.
The Utah Supreme Court held that a DUI defendant properly invoked extraordinary-writ review but denied relief because the requested constitutional ruling was unlikely to change his prosecution.
The Utah Supreme Court held that terminating parental rights to facilitate an adoption requires a strictly necessary analysis, while affirming because the district court’s omission was harmless.
Applying Ross v. Kracht, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed that terminating an incarcerated father’s rights was strictly necessary to protect four children’s stability and permit their stepfather’s adoption.
The Utah Supreme Court held that a trial court’s brief sua sponte consideration does not preserve a fact-dependent damages theory when treating it as preserved would undermine judicial economy and fairness.