Case Summaries

• Jurisdiction: Utah,United States
• Pages: 20
• Publication year: 1990
• Citation: Vol. 3 No. 4 Pg. 20
• Date: 01 April 1990

CASE SUMMARIES Vol. 3 No. 4 Pg. 20 Utah Bar Journal April, 1990

Clark Nielsen, J.

RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

The Utah Supreme Court has approved the new, consolidated appellate courts' rules, the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, effective April 1, 1990. These rules supercede and replace the rules of the Utah Supreme Court and the rules of the Utah Court of Appeals.

The new Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure ("Utah R. App. P.") are essentially the same as the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court rules, except for a few significant changes or clarifications:

1. The rules governing certiorari, transfers and discretionary jurisdiction are renumbered as Rules 41-51.

2. The designation of parties is changed to "Appellant" and "Appellee" (not "respondent"). [Rule 3(c)]

3. A "cross-appeal" also requires the payment of appeal and docketing fees. [Rule 3(f)]

4. Docketing statements and briefs must state the applicable standard for appellate review. [Rules 9 and 24]

5. A request for an extension of time must be filed before the applicable original time expires.

6. The courts' priority list for oral argument calendaring is memorialized in Rule 27(c). Upon calendaring, oral argument is presumed requested unless waived by the parties. [Rule 29]

7. Criminal cases are no longer excluded from Rule 31 calendaring. [Rule 31]

8. Rule 33 is substantially changed regarding penalties for delay and frivolous appeals. Clarification is added that attorneys' fees are not costs on appeal.

9. Counsel must keep the court apprised of her or his current address and telephone. [Rule 40]

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION-PREJUDICIAL DEFECTS IN FAILURE TO FILE

Plaintiffs challenged Manti City's creation of a special improvement district under U.C.A. §10-16-7(5). The district court invalidated the creation of the special district because the City failed to file with the county recorder its notice of intent as required by statute. Discussing the various statutory notice and filing requirements to create a special improvement district, the Utah Supreme Court noted that the city gave proper notice by publication except for filing its intent with the recorder. The court recognized two lines of authority: (1) such a procedural defect voids the formation of a district or assessment levy; and (2) procedural defects do not necessarily void a special district creation. The issue is whether the procedural irregularity has affected the property owner's ability to...