Category: -Rules of Appellate Procedure

URAP004. Appeal as of right: when taken. Amend. The Committee is posting for public comment proposed changes to Rule 4(f) again after numerous comments were received, and additional changes were made to the proposed rule amendment. The Committee previously proposed the following changes: (1) add to the rule the standard governing motions to reinstate the time for appeal; (2) restructure the section to be consistent with subsection 4(g) (addressing reinstating the right to appeal in civil cases); (3) clean up language for clarity and consistency; and (4) included a one-year deadline from discovery of facts giving rise to the claim.

After reviewing the comments received the Committee removed the three examples from Manning v. State, 2005 UT 61, 122 P.3d 628, previously located under paragraph (f)(5) because, as Manning recognized, those examples did not provide the exclusive grounds for reinstating the right to appeal. See id. ¶31 n.11.

URAP014. Review of administrative orders: how obtained; intervention. Amend

The Advisory Committee on the Rules of Appellate Procedure recommends amending Rule 14, which addresses review of administrative orders, to allow parties to file a cross-petition when a petition for review is filed by another party. The proposal responds to the Utah Court of Appeals’ observation that allowing cross-petitions in administrative appeals would further judicial efficiency. See Watson v. Lab. Comm’n, 2020 UT App 170, ¶1 n.1, 480 P.3d 353.

URAP004. Appeal as of right: when taken. Amend. The proposed amendments to Rule 4, subsection (f), addressing reinstating the right to appeal in criminal cases; are to (1) add that a motion to reinstate must be filed within one year from discovery of facts giving rise to the claim; (2) include the standard governing such motions; (3) restructure the section to be consistent with subsection 4(g) (addressing reinstating the right to appeal in civil cases); (4) and clean up language for clarity and consistency.

URAP020. Habeas corpus proceedings. Repeal. The Utah Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Rules of Appellate Procedure recommends repealing Rule 20 because it is superfluous and confusing, and could prejudice a criminal defendant’s opportunity to seek relief under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA). Rules 65B and 65C of the civil rules, together with the PCRA, Utah Code § 78B-9-101 to -110, already provide mechanisms to challenge the lawfulness of any official detention.

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.

URAP025. Amicus curiae briefs. Amend. The proposed amendments to Rule 25: (1) modify the language throughout to rule to mirror the federal rule; (2) incorporate the language from Rule 50 regarding amicus curiae briefs; (3) allow an amicus curiae brief to be filed without leave of court if all parties have consented to its filing; (4) provide a word count length requirement; (5) change the due date from 21 days to 14 days in 25(d); (6) added language in 25(g) addressing responsive briefs; and (7) clean up other language for clarity and consistency.

URAP023. Motions. Amend. The proposed amendments remove all language regarding form requirements in 23(f) and incorporate that language into Rule 27.

URAP027. Form of briefs. Amend. The proposed amendments: (1) combine form requirements for briefs, motions, and other documents into one rule; (2) incorporate language regarding form requirements from Rule 23(f); and (3) clean up other language for clarity and consistency.

URAP015. Petitions for review in tax cases. Amend. The proposed amendments to Rule 15: (1) remove the statutory citations in 15(a) and 15(c); (2) rework the language in 15(c); and (3) clean up other language for clarity and consistency.

URAP025. Amicus curiae briefs. Amend. The proposed amendments to Rule 25: (1) modify the language throughout to rule to mirror the federal rule; (2) incorporate the language from Rule 50 regarding amicus curiae briefs; (3) allow an amicus curiae brief to be filed without leave of court if all parties have consented to its filing; (4) provide a word count length requirement; (5) change the due date from 21 days to 14 days in 25(d); and (6) clean up other language for clarity and consistency.

URAP050. Response; reply. Amend. The proposed amendments to Rule 50: (1) remove all mention of amicus curiae briefs and incorporate that language into Rule 25; (2) replace the phrase “subject index” with “table of contents” in 50(b); (3) change the due date from 14 days to 7 days in 50(d); (4) incorporate Standing Order 11; and (5) clean up other language for clarity and consistency.

URAP043. Certification by the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. Amend. The proposed amendments to Rule 43: (1) change the due date from ten days to 14 days in 43(b)(1); (2) comport the rule with Standing Order 11 (regarding filing documents by email); and (3) clean up other language for clarity and consistency.

URAP048. The amendments to Rule 48(e)(1) help to clarify Subsections (e)(1) and (e)(2) and when the Court may extend the time for filing a petition or cross-petition for a writ of certiorari.