Utah: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)


Examples from Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, 150 P.3d 480

. . . .

¶19 . . . The current regulations contain a tiered system for the payment of attorney fees, which compensates counsel according to the procedural stage of the post-conviction proceedings reached. See Utah Admin. Code r. 25-14-4. Under this system, the maximum amount of compensation an attorney may receive for representing a petitioner in a post-conviction death penalty case is $ 37,500. Id. Under these rules, the Division of Finance will also "pay reasonable litigation expenses not to exceed a total of $ 20,000 in any one case for court-approved investigators, expert witnesses, and consultants." Utah Admin. Code r. 25-14-5.

. . . .

¶48 On April 22, 2004, Menzies filed a notice of appeal with the district court indicating that he would seek review of the court's denial of 60(b) relief as well as the order regarding the destruction of the inadmissible documents. Menzies' appeal is now before this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78-2-2(3)(i) (2002).

. . . .

¶65 The first question we must consider is whether Menzies' 60(b) motion was timely. A motion under 60(b) must "be made within a reasonable time and for reason[] (1) . . . not more than 3 months after the judgment . . . was entered." Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b). In cases where subsection (b)(1) applies, a movant may not attempt to circumvent the three-month filing period by relying on another subsection. Russell v. Martell, 681 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Utah 1984); Laub v. S. Cent. Utah Tel. Ass'n., 657 P.2d 1304, 1308 (Utah 1982); Richins v. Delbert Chipman & Sons Co., 817 P.2d 382, 387 (Utah Ct. App. 1991). Under rule 60(b), a reasonable time "depends upon the facts of each case, considering such factors as the interest in finality, the reason for the delay, the practical ability of the litigant to learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and prejudice to other parties." Gillmor v. Wright, 850 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah 1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In general, the moving party satisfies the reasonable time requirement if she shows "that she acted diligently once the basis for relief became available, and that the delay in seeking relief did not cause undue hardship to the opposing party." Workman v. Nagle Constr., Inc., 802 P.2d 749, 752 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

. . . .

¶68 The problem with the State's argument is that the State fails to distinguish between a motion that is properly supported for purposes of the particularity requirement and a motion that is timely filed for purposes of avoiding the limitations provisions of 60(b). Both rule 7 and rule 4-501 are designed to "promote the policies of (1) mitigating prejudice to opposing parties by allowing that party to respond to the motion . . . and (2) assuring that a court can be apprised of the basis of a motion and rule upon it with a proper understanding." See Holmes Dev., LLC v. Cook, 2002 UT 38, ¶ 58, 48 P.3d 895 (discussing requirements for motions to amend). If a party fails to "comply with Utah's formal motion practice rules," a district court may, within its discretion, deny the motion on the grounds that it is insufficient. Id. ¶ 59. However, sufficiency is not a logically necessary component of timeliness. A party can timely move the court for relief despite the fact that its motion may be insufficient because, for example, it lacks particularity. In such a situation, the court has the discretion, consistent with the policy concerns noted above, either to deny the motion as being insufficient or to allow the party to supplement the originally insufficient motion. In the case before us, the district court chose the latter option, holding that Menzies' 60(b) motion was timely filed and that Menzies should be allowed to supplement the motion under the circumstances. The district court was entirely within its discretion to do so.

. . . .

Utah Sup. Ct. Standing Order 4, http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/urap/Supctso.htm#4.

Effective March 1, 2000, the initial citation of any published opinion of the Utah Supreme Court or th Utah Court of Appeals, released on or after January 1, 1999, in any brief, table of cases in the brief, memorandum, or other document filed in the Utah Supreme Court or the Utah Court of Appeals, shall include the case name, the year the opinion was issued, identification of the court that issued the opinion (UT for Utah Supreme Court and UT App for the Utah Court of Appeals), and the sequential number assigned to the opinion by the respective court. Citation to specific portions of the opinion shall be made by reference to the paragraph numbers assigned by the court. A comma and then a paragraph symbol (¶) should be placed immediately following the sequential number assigned to the case. Subsequent citations within the brief, document, or memorandum should include the paragraph number and sufficient references to identify the initial citation. Initial citations shall also include the volume and initial page number of the Pacific Reporter in which the opinion is published. When an opinion is in slip form awaiting inclusion in a Pacific Reporter volume, the slip opinion form should be used. A pinpoint citation is not required in the parallel citation to the Pacific Reporter since the paragraph numbers assigned by the court are included in the Pacific Reporter version. Likewise, it is not necessary to include the year the case was published since that will be evident from the initial citation.

Examples of an initial citation to a Utah Supreme Court opinion or a Utah Court of Appeals opinion issued on or after January 1, 1999, using fictitious decisions, would be as follows:

Smith v. Jones, 1999 UT 16.
Smith v. Jones, 1999 UT App 16.

Before publication in Pacific Reporter but after publication in Utah Advance Reports:

Smith v. Jones, 1999 UT 16, 380 Utah Adv. Rep. 24.
Smith v. Jones, 1999 UT App 16, 380 Utah Adv. Rep. 24.

After publication in Pacific Reporter:

Smith v. Jones, 1999 UT 16, 998 P.2d 250.
Smith v. Jones, 1999 UT App 16, 998 P.2d 250.

Examples of a pinpoint citation to a Utah Supreme Court opinion or a Utah Court of Appeals opinion issued on or after January 1, 1999, would be as follows:

Before publication in Utah Advance Reports:

Smith v. Jones, 1999 UT 16, ¶21.
Smith v. Jones, 1999 UT App 16, ¶21.
Smith v. Jones, 1999 UT App 16, ¶¶21-25.

Before publication in Pacific Reporter but after publication in Utah Advance Reports:

Smith v. Jones, 1999 UT 16, ¶21, 380 Utah Adv. Rep. 24.
Smith v. Jones, 1999 UT App 16, ¶21, 380 Utah Adv. Rep. 24.

After publication in Pacific Reporter:

Smith v. Jones, 1999 UT 16, ¶21, 998 P.2d 250.
Smith v. Jones, 1999 UT App 16, ¶21, 998 P.2d 250.

If the immediately preceding authority is a post-January 1, 1999, opinion, cite to the paragraph number:

Id. at ¶15.