Rules of Appellate Procedure – Comment Period Closed March 5, 2022

URAP010. Extension of time. Amend. The proposed amendments to Rule 10, subsection (d): address enlargements of time for filing memoranda under the simplified appeals process to make the language regarding the deadline for such motions consistent with that in Rules 22(a) and 22(b)(3).

URAP011. The record on appeal. Amend. The proposed amendments to Rule 11: (1) address the Court’s concerns—that arose in Arreguin-Leon v. Hadco Constr., LLC, 2020 UT 59, 472 P.3d 927—about defining what constitutes the record on appeal and the procedures for correcting or supplementing the record on appeal; (2) clarify and adjust the deadlines for ordering transcripts, ensuring that indigent parties have the opportunity to review the case before being required to order transcripts; (3) incorporate the Court’s Standing Order 11 (regarding filing documents by email); and (4) make other changes to conform with the Appellate Clerks’ Office current practice.

URAP012. Transmitting the record. Amend. The proposed amendments to Rule 12: (1) recognize the current practice of utilizing electronic records and the appellate court’s transcript management system; (2) incorporate the Court’s Standing Order 11 (regarding filing documents by email); and (3) make other changes to conform with the Appellate Clerks’ Office current practice.

This entry was posted in -Rules of Appellate Procedure, URAP010, URAP011, URAP012.

William Hains

March 4, 2022 at 4:54 pm

On line 120, add “the” before “appellant’s brief.” Omitting “the” appears to have been a typo.

On line 92, consider striking “complete and.”

Requiring the trial court to find that a joint statement of the record is not only “accurate” but also “complete” contradicts the very purpose of what is re-designated as Subsection (d). This Subsection expressly allows for a joint statement of the facts that is not “complete” in the strict sense. The joint statement needs to provide “only so many of the facts averred and proved or sought to be proved as are essential to a decision of the issues presented.” (See lines 90-91.)

Perhaps some other word(s) could be used to convey the concept of completeness within the meaning of Subsection (d)—i.e., containing all facts essential to a decision of the issues presented. But it wouldn’t make sense to require the trial court to make that determination, but then say the court can then add “such additions as the trial court may consider necessary fully to present the issues raised by the appeal.” (See lines 92-93.)

I think the best approach is to simply go with a finding of accuracy, as the rule currently does, but replace “conforms to the truth” with the more natural “accurate,” as the proposed rule does: “If the trial court deems the statement accurate, it, together with such additions as the trial court may consider necessary fully to present the issues raised by the appeal, will be approved by the trial court.” The rule would still require the trial court to determine that all facts essential to a decision of the issues presented are contained in the statement. It just wouldn’t contain contradictory directives.

3 thoughts on “Rules of Appellate Procedure – Comment Period Closed March 5, 2022”

Leslie Slaugh

January 19, 2022 at 4:22 pm

Proposed Rules 11 and 12 should, but don’t, allow for electronic exhibits. The rules allow for electronic documents (pleadings, motions, etc.) but not electronic exhibits. I have had two cases, one pre-COVID and the other just a few months ago, where all the exhibits were electronic, but we had to print physical copies after trial for transmission to the appellate court. Where the exhibits at the trial level were electronic, the same electronic exhibits should be part of the record on appeal.
Rex Bagley

February 17, 2022 at 3:42 pm

If the Court is to fully realize the benefits of electronic technologies to both the law and the public, then every effort must be made to fully integrate these technologies and electronic communications systems. Given the capabilities of modern technology, court documents could not only be prepared using Internet based technologies but research could be integrated into that system and plugged into these documents which could then be accessed by the readers. The record could be called by a hyperlink embedded in the document that, once clicked, would be instantly viewable by the reader just like case citations, evidence, etc. This can all be accomplished by a browser based interface that is designed to format, cite, quote, etc. in compliance with court rules.

The benefits of such a system are readily recognizable as it eases the burden on the judiciary, it leads to a more informed public, and it ushers the public toward a better understanding of the law and the justice system; this all leads to better laws and a more efficient justice system.
William Hains

March 4, 2022 at 4:54 pm

On line 120, add “the” before “appellant’s brief.” Omitting “the” appears to have been a typo.

On line 92, consider striking “complete and.”

Requiring the trial court to find that a joint statement of the record is not only “accurate” but also “complete” contradicts the very purpose of what is re-designated as Subsection (d). This Subsection expressly allows for a joint statement of the facts that is not “complete” in the strict sense. The joint statement needs to provide “only so many of the facts averred and proved or sought to be proved as are essential to a decision of the issues presented.” (See lines 90-91.)

Perhaps some other word(s) could be used to convey the concept of completeness within the meaning of Subsection (d)—i.e., containing all facts essential to a decision of the issues presented. But it wouldn’t make sense to require the trial court to make that determination, but then say the court can then add “such additions as the trial court may consider necessary fully to present the issues raised by the appeal.” (See lines 92-93.)

I think the best approach is to simply go with a finding of accuracy, as the rule currently does, but replace “conforms to the truth” with the more natural “accurate,” as the proposed rule does: “If the trial court deems the statement accurate, it, together with such additions as the trial court may consider necessary fully to present the issues raised by the appeal, will be approved by the trial court.” The rule would still require the trial court to determine that all facts essential to a decision of the issues presented are contained in the statement. It just wouldn’t contain contradictory directives.