Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bresee v. Barton

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided November 3, 2016No. 20140565-CAPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partOrme, Judge

¶70 I concur in the court’s opinion—with one exception. In paragraph 34 of the lead opinion, my colleagues ably explain that appellants have not preserved for appellate review the issues identified in paragraph 33. They point out that we will not consider on appeal issues that have not been preserved, absent a demonstration of plain error or other exceptional circumstances. And they correctly conclude that the Bresees have not raised, much less have they properly briefed, a claim that the issues should nonetheless be considered under either doctrine. In my view, our discussion of these issues…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. HolgateUtah Supreme Court · 2000
  2. State v. LarrabeeUtah Supreme Court · 2013
  3. State v. BlubaughCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1995
  4. State v. SepulvedaCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1992
  5. Berkshires, L.L.C. v. SykesCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2005

4 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