Month: April 2024


Washington City, Utah—The deadline for applications for a justice court judge position in Washington City has been extended. The position will replace Judge Jake Graff who will resign in June.
To be considered for a justice court judgeship in Washington County, candidates must be at least 25 years of age, a citizen of the United States, a Utah resident for at least three years, and have a degree from a law school that would make one eligible to apply for admission to a bar in any state in the United States. In addition, applicants must be a resident of Washington County, an adjacent county, or the judicial district in which the justice court is located either upon appointment or within a reasonable time following appointment.
Information on judicial retention and performance evaluation is posted on the Utah State Court’s website at under employment opportunities. An application for judicial office form must be completed and is available on the court’s website ( The salary range for the position is $71,865 to $92,398 per year. For additional information about working for Washington City, email Jeremy Redd at or call him at (435) 656-6313.
The deadline for applications is Monday, April 22, 2024 at 5 p.m. and should be sent to the attention of Jim Peters, Administrative Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 140241, Salt Lake City, UT, 84114-0241. Applications received after the deadline will not be accepted. For questions about the justice courts or the process for filling this position, email Jim Peters, Justice Court Administrator, at
Utah law requires the Judicial Nominating Commission to submit three to five nominees to the mayor of Washington City, Kress Staheli, within 45 days of its first meeting. Mayor Staheli will then have 30 days in which to select a finalist. His selection must then be ratified by the Washington City Council and certified by the Utah Judicial Council.
# # #
Continue Reading


Salt Lake City, UT – The Utah Court of Appeals will hear two oral arguments at the University of Utah on Wednesday, April 3, 2024, beginning at 10:30 a.m. Arguments will be held at the SJ Quinney College of Law, 383 South University Street, Salt Lake City, and are open to the public. The judicial panel will be comprised of Associate Presiding Judge Ryan M. Harris, Judge Gregory K. Orme, and Judge Ryan D. Tenney. The panel will hear the following cases:

State v. Begay, 20230228 – 10:30 a.m.

In 2021, L.Z. reported to police that, 25 years ago, in 1996, when she was 13-years-old, then-22-year-old Sylvestor Begay had raped her. The State filed rape and sexual assault charges against Begay. Soon thereafter, Begay asked the district court to dismiss the case, asserting that the case had been filed too late and was therefore barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court denied the motion and Begay appealed that denial.

The statute of limitations applicable here states that a valid prosecution may “be commenced…within four years after” the offense is “report[ed]” to “a law enforcement agency.” The State contends that the statute of limitations did not start to run until 2021 when L.Z. reported the alleged rape to police officers. Begay, on the other hand, contends that the statute of limitations started running way back in 1998, when another girl reported to police that Begay had sexually assaulted her and, in the course of making that report about her own assault, also told police that “the same things had happened to” L.Z. Thus, the question presented in the case is whether the other girl’s 1998 conversation with police constitutes a “report” of Begay’s alleged offense against L.Z. Begay asserts that it does, but the State contends otherwise, asserting that it was not intended as a report and was not specific enough to qualify as such.

Hallet v. Tully, 20230364 at 11:00 a.m

Plaintiff suffered a stroke while vacationing in southern Utah. She later brought this medical malpractice action, claiming that a misdiagnosis resulted in her early discharge from the hospital and led to her stroke, which had disastrous consequences for her. She appeals the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of defendant the close of her case at trial, the court having concluded that she did not adduce sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that she had met her burden of proof with respect to causation. Relatedly, she challenges the pretrial exclusion of one of her expert witnesses and limitations imposed on the testimony of another witness, which witness and testimony, she argues, would have strengthened her causation evidence. Defendant, an emergency room physician assistant, contends that the challenged rulings of the trial court were correct.

Please note that these case summaries have been prepared for educational purposes only, as a convenience to students, the public, and the press. They have been prepared by court staff and do not necessarily reflect the judges’ views about the case.

# # #

Continue Reading