State v. Lara
Court of Appeals of Utah
1DissentBench, Judge
139 In straining to reach its desired result, the main opinion refuses to follow controlling precedent.
140 The approach outlined by the main opinion is unattainable because this court lacks jurisdiction to even consider the substance of the appeal. As recited in the main opinion, Lara filed a timely notice of appeal from the juvenile court's bind-over order on January 31, 2001. Subsequently, pursuant to Lara's own motion, we dismissed the appeal on February 15, 2001. Lara filed no timely motion to reinstate his appeal or to withdraw his motion. Consequently, on March 21, 2001, we remitted…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. TuttleUtah Supreme Court · 1985
- Bruner v. CarverUtah Supreme Court · 1996
- Hi-Country Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Foothills Water Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1996
- State in Interest of McCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1996
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.