Month: November 2023

Continue Reading

Rules of Juvenile Procedure – Comment Period Closed January 1, 2024

URJP052. Appeals. Amend. The proposed amendments to Rule 52 include an overall restructure of the rule to provide clarity regarding juvenile court appeals timeframes. The amendments also include the addition of restoration of parental rights cases as cases that may be subject to appeal.

URJP056. Expungement. Amend. The proposed amendments to Rule 56 include: (1) updates to the referenced statute; (2) a simpler and clearer paragraph (b) regarding adjudication expungements that aligns with the statute, while removing language that places requirements not found in the statute; (3) removal of the language in paragraph (d) as the statute now places the responsibility of serving an expungement order on the juvenile court; and (4) the addition of three new expungement categories created by House Bill 60 of the 2023 Legislative Session.

Continue Reading

Rules of Evidence – Comment Period Closed December 31, 2023

URE0506. Physician and Mental Health Therapist-Patient. Amend. This rule was previously published for public comment as to proposed new subparagraphs (d)(2), (e), and (f), and proposed changes to subparagraph (b)(3) and renumbered subparagraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4). After receiving public comments, the Committee proposes to amend subparagraph (d)(1) to clarify that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to the exception addressed there. The Committee also proposes to substitute the term “matter” for “case” in subparagraph (d)(2) and (e), and to make other changes for stylistic uniformity. The post-public comment proposed changes are highlighted in yellow in the linked redline draft.

Continue Reading

Rules of Civil Procedure – Comment Period Closed December 31, 2023

URCP101. Motion practice before court commissioners. AMEND.  The proposed change to subparagraph (k) stems from the footnote found in Nelson v. Nelson, 2023 UT App 38 and language found in URCP Rule 7B.  The amendment would change all “application for order to show cause language” to “motions to enforce order and for sanctions.”  Other non-substantive changes to the rule are made to adhere to the Utah Supreme Court style guide for the rules.

URCP064. Writs in general. AMEND. The proposed amendments to subparagraph (f)(4) substitutes the word “file” with the word “record” as it relates to recording with the county recorder.  Other non-substantive changes to the rule are made to adhere to the Utah Supreme Court style guide for the rules.

URCP066. Receivers. AMEND. The proposed amendments to subparagraph (g) substitutes the word “file” with the word “record” as it relates to recording with the county recorder.  Other non-substantive changes to the rule are made to adhere to the Utah Supreme Court style guide for the rules.

URCP069A. Seizure of property. AMEND. The proposed amendments to subparagraph (b) substitutes the word “file” with the word “record” as it relates to recording with the county recorder.  Other non-substantive changes to the rule are made to adhere to the Utah Supreme Court style guide for the rules.

URCP069B. Sale of property; delivery of property. AMEND. The proposed amendments to subparagraph (i) substitutes the word “file” with the word “record” as it relates to recording with the county recorder.  Other non-substantive changes to the rule are made to adhere to the Utah Supreme Court style guide for the rules.

URCP069C. Redemption of real property after sale. AMEND. The proposed amendments to subparagraphs (e) and (g) substitutes the word “file” with the word “record” as it relates to recording with the county recorder.  Other non-substantive changes to the rule are made to adhere to the Utah Supreme Court style guide for the rules.

Continue Reading

Rule of Criminal Procedure – Comment Period Closed December 30, 2023

URCrP021. Verdict Options. Amend. The proposed amendments make minor modifications to language use throughout the Rule and include a new subsection on legally impossible verdicts. This subsection explains the role of the Court in vacating a legally impossible verdict and describes when a legally impossible verdict occurs. The Committee incorporated this subsection into the Rule based on the Utah Supreme Court’s holding in Pleasant Grove v. Terry, 2020 UT 69.

Continue Reading