Legal Opinion

Salt Lake City v. Newman

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided May 5, 2005No. 20040452-CAPublished

1DissentDavis, Judge

¶ 18 I concur with the lead opinion’s conclusion that a trial de novo in a district court may not always be a “plain, speedy[,] and adequate remedy.” Utah R. Civ. P. 65B(a). I also agree with the lead opinion’s recognition of Newman’s right to petition, for an extraordinary writ and the trial court’s hearing and ruling thereon, although-1 would not limit the right to petition for an extraordinary writ to “truly exceptional” circumstances. However, I.believe that the ordinance unconstitutionally conflicts with the Utah assault, statute. See Utah Const, art. XI, § 5 (granting cities the…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Will v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Ex Parte RowlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  3. Bernat v. AllphinUtah Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Salt Lake City v. AllredUtah Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Richfield City v. WalkerCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1990

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API