DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States No. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GREG ANDERSON Petitioner, VS. GARY HERBERT et. al. Respondents. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Greg Anderson pro se 24 South 7' Street Tooele, Utah 84074 Phone: 385 231-5005 NOV 1 - 2018 QUESTION PRESENTED Is a judgment void on its face, when a State Court steals a paid-for home at the motion to dismiss stage of the proceedings, under the guise that the owner was a tenant, where plaintiff attorneys misrepresented the law and contractual terms of the purchase contract 30 times in a 6 page document, then wrote the "Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law," with no reference to the purported record, and the judge rubber-stamped plaintiffs claims, and the court denied itself jurisdiction by not strictly adhering to the statute, thereby implicating conspiracy. 11 PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW Petitioner is Greg Anderson. Respondents Are Gary Herbert in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Utah, Sean Reyes in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the State of Utah, Clark A McClellan, in His Individual Capacity, and in His Official Capacity for His Extra- judicial Acts, Third District Court, in its Official Capacity, Eighth District Court in its Official Capacity, Utah Court of Appeals in its Official Capacity, Daniel W. Kitchen, James L. Ahistrom, Terry Welch, Lynn Kitchen, Gary Kitchen, Mathew J. Kitchen, Mark R. Kitchen, Sandbay LLC Sunlake LLC, Orchid Beach LLC Roosevelt Hills LLC, John or Jane Doe(s) 1 Through 10 Note: No John or Jane Doe's have been named, nor have any other parties. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Question Presented . ii Table of Contents ...... iii Table of Authorities. v Citations to the Opinions below . 1 Jurisdiction .......... 1 Opinions below ......... 1 Relevant Statutory Provisions . 2 Statement of the Case ..........4 Reasons for Granting the Writ . 11 The Court Should Review a Rule 60(b)&(d) Case 11 Void Judgments That Reach this Court Are Extremely Rare . 13 Lower Courts Need Definite Guidelines . 14 Courts Should Not Be Used for the Theft of Property The Tenth Circuit Did Not Follow its Own Mandated Case Law . 15 Crooked Lawyers Should Be Stopped from Deviating from Constitutional Law . 16 Pro Se Litigants Should Have Full Constitutional Rights Regarding Void Judgments . 19 This Court Should Once Again Remind Lower Courts That a Void Judgment Cannot Gain Legitimacy, Therefore Any Issue Trying to Justify the Void Judgment Is Also Void as a Matter of Supreme lv Court Law . 19 In the Interest of Justice . 22 This Court Should Act Here Because the Defense Attorneys Have Constructively Thumbed the Nose at Justice Ginsberg and Other Justices . 22 Rule 60(b)&(d) of the Federal Rules of Federal Procedure Should Be Addressed . 24 When a Litigant Claims a Judgment Is Void on its Face, All Courts Should Be Mandated to Review That Issue in Their Decision . 24 Void Judgments Are Part of Common Law . 26 It Is Unfair for a District or Circuit Court to Use non Jurisdictional Issues to Dismiss a Law Suit at the Motion to Dismiss Stage of the Proceedings . 27 Courts Are Afraid to Undue Another Court's Judgment Thereby Denying Constitutional Rights. 28 No One Is above the Law . 29 Rogue Attorneys Should Be Exposed . 31 Petitioner Has Been Falsely Accused of Being a Dead Beat Renter Because He was not Allowed to speak in the Eighth District Court in violation of the First Amendment . 32 The Court Splits should be addressed concerning void judgments . 36 Wiping the Slate Clean . 37 Conclusion ....... 37 V Appendix Table of Contents Tenth Circuit Court Order and Judgment . 3 Motion to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to Declare Eight District Court Judgment Void . 18 District Court - Order Adopting Report & Recommendation . 40 Magistrate Report and Recommendation . 54 Petitioner's District Court Complaint . 85 Motion-memo-partial Summary Judgment - Federal District Court . 194 Petitioner's Verified Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in Eighth District Court . 226 Defendants Motion to Dismiss Memorandum 2008 Showing 30 Misrepresentations of Law and Contractual Terms . 239 Petitioners Motion to Declare Eight District Court Judgment Void . 246 Eighth District Court - Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law . 261 Eighth District Court Order of Restitution . 265 The Second Judge's Ruing and Order in the Eighth District Court Decision . 269 Real Estate Purchase Contract Between vi Petitioner and Sandbay LLC Daniel Kitchen . 274 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES A. K Investment Group, LLC v. City of Glendale No. 16-1492 (May 14, 2018) . 30 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545 . 12, 20, 31, 38 Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 U. S. 394 . 31 Batty v. Batty 153 P.3d 827 Utah App. 2006) . 6 Bequet v. MacCarthy, 2B. & Ad. 951,959 . 30 Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, (1930) . 21,35 Buchheit, 705 F.3dat 1159 ......17 Carey v. Piphus 435 U. S. 247,254-257(1978) . 32 Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 11, 17 (1883) . 21 Dennis v. Sparks 449 U. S. 23 (1985) . 6, 13, 17, 23 Douglas v. Forrest, 4 Bing. 686, 700,701 . 30 Exxon Mobile Corp., v. Saudi Basic Industries 544U. S. 280 (2005) . 14 Firemans Insurance Co. v. Brown, 529 P. 2d. 419 .10 First Sec. Bank of Utah, N A. v. Maxwell 659 P.2d 1078, 1081 (Utah 1983) . 6 vii Hazel-Atlas Co. v. Hartford Co. 322 U. S. 238 (1943) fn 5, 13 , 15, 16, 23, 25, 38 Herring v. United States ofAmerica 424 F.3d 384,386 (3rd Cir. 2005) . 24 641,644(71h In re Edwards 962 F.2d Cir. 1992) . 15 Jefferson v. Upton 560 U. S. 284 (2010) . fn5,17,23 Keene v. Bonser 107 P.3d 693 (Utah App. 2005) . 6 Lincoln Financial Corp. v. Ferrier, 567 P.2d 1102 (Utah 1977) . 10 Luger v. Edmondson Oil Company 457 U. S. 922. 11 Maubourquet v. Wyse (1867), 1 Jr. Rep. C. L. 471,481 30 McDonald vMabee 243 U.S. 905 91 (1917) . 30 Monroe v. Pape 365 U.S. 167 (1961) . 11 Nelson v. Adams 529 U. S. 460 (2000) fn 5, 10, 13, 22, 23 33, 34, 35 Pacific Development Co. v. Stewart, 195 P. 2d 748 (1948 Utah) . 10 Parkside Salt Lake City Corp., v. Insure-Rite, 37P.3d. 1202 . 10 Moss v. Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless 287 P.3d 1157, 1166 (Utah 2012) . 32 Viii Pennoyerv. Neff, 95U. S. 714 (1878) . 21,35 Pernell v. SouthhallRealty416 U.S. 363 (1974) . 10 Sh elley v. Kra em er 334 U.S.1 . 21 United Student Aid Funds, Inc. V. Espinosa, 130 S. Ct. 1367 . 13,23 V. T A., mv., v. Airco, Inc. 597 F. 2d 220 (10th Cir. 1979) . 7,16 White v. District Court, 232 P.2d785 . 10 Wyatt v. Cole et. a]. 504 U. S. 158 . 11,32 Zyverden v. Farrar 393 P.2d468 (Utah 1964) fn5, 8 STATUTES 42U.S.C.1983 . 3 AMENDMENTS First Amendment . 33 RULES Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1) . 10,35 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12 . 34 Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) . 35 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12 . 11, 12 OTHER When the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Yield to Ix Finality by Stephen Ludovici . 28 Moore's Federal Practice 3D 60-159 §60.44 . 36 CITATIONS TO THE OPINIONS BELOW The Tenth Circuit Order and Judgment is No. 17-4200, and was filed on August 2, 2018. (App. p 3) The federal District Court Order and Memorandum Decision is case No. 2:17-cv-00083, Dkt. 111,was dated November 29, 2017, and is listed in (App. p 41) The Magistrate Report and Recommendation is No. 2:17-cv-00083, Dkt 97 in the (App. p. 55) Utah's Eighth District Court Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law December 3, 2008 (Case no. 080800143, App. p. 253) JURISDICTION The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. 1254 (1). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals entered judgment on August 2, 2018. OPINIONS BELOW This case began in Utah's Eighth District Court where the court ruled Anderson was a tenant, in spite of the fact his home was paid for. Petitioner contends that judgment is void as a matter of law on its face. Petitioner then went to Utah's Third District Court, but the Third District refused to mention "void judgment" or "due process." the Federal District Court in Salt Lake City Utah dismissed evoking the Rooker- Feldman Doctrine and other non jurisdictional issues. The Tenth Circuit reversed on the Rooker-Feidman because the Federal case was filed prior to the State cases becoming final, but allowed defendants to prevail on non-jurisdictional issues. RELEVANT PROVISIONS The Fourteenth Amendment states in part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. The Fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The First Amendment in relevant part states, Congress shall make no law.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Collecting Money from a Small Claims Judgment
    If the defendant is not present at the fies the defendant and his/her property. trial, the court will send a copy of the small claims judgment to the defendant. The • If you have the information described judgment will order the defendant to pay above, you can start the process for an you in full within 21 days or tell you and the order to seize property or for garnishment. court where s/he works and the location of his/her bank accounts. • If you don't have the information described above, you will need to order the 3. If the defendant doesn't pay the defendant to appear in court for questioning judgment as ordered, you will have to through a process called discovery. You can collect your money through a seizure of start this process by filing a discovery subpoena. property or a garnishment. Filing a Discovery Subpoena COLLECTING MONEY FROM A What Is Seizure of Property? You must wait 21 days after your small SMALL CLAIMS JUDGMENT Seizure of property is a court procedure claims judgment was signed before you can allowing a court officer to seize property file a discovery subpoena. Form MC 11, If you sued someone for money and belonging to the defendant which can be sold Subpoena (Order to Appear), can be used. received a judgment against that person, you to pay for your judgment. If you want to file a have the right to collect the money. request to seize property, you may use form Contact the court for an appearance date MC 19, Request and Order to Seize Property.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Trafficking and Exploitation
    HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND EXPLOITATION MANUAL FOR TEACHERS Third Edition Recommended by the order of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Armenia as a supplemental material for teachers of secondary educational institutions Authors: Silva Petrosyan, Heghine Khachatryan, Ruzanna Muradyan, Serob Khachatryan, Koryun Nahapetyan Updated by Nune Asatryan The opinions expressed in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Organization for Migration ¥IOM¤. The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IOM concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries. IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. As an intergovernmental organization, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to: assist in meeting the operational challenges of migration; advance understanding of migration issues; encourage social and economic development through migration; and uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants. This publication has been issued without formal language editing by IOM. Publisher: International Organization for Migration Mission in Armenia 14, Petros Adamyan Str. UN House, Yerevan 0010, Armenia Telephone: ¥+374 10¤ 58 56 92, 58 37 86 Facsimile: ¥+374 10¤ 54 33 65 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.iom.int/countries/armenia © 2016 International Organization for Migration ¥IOM¤ All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • “Law of Precedent”
    1 Summary of papers written by Judicial Officers on the subje ct: ªLAW OF PRECEDENTº Introduction :- A precedent is a statement of law found in the decision of a superior Court, which decision has to be followed by that court and by the courts inferior to it. Precedent is a previous decision upon which the judges have to follow the past decisions carefully in the cases before them as a guide for all present or future decisions. In other words, `Judicial Precedent' means a judgment of a Court of law cited as an authority for deciding a similar set of facts, a case which serves as authority for the legal principle embodied in its decision. A judicial precedent is a decision of the Court used as a source for future decision making. Meaning :- A precedent is a statement of law found in decision of a Superior Court. Though law making is the work of the legislature, Judges make law through the precedent. 2 Inferior courts must follow such laws. Decisions based on a question of law are precedents. Decisions based on question of facts are not precedents. Judges must follow the binding decisions of Superior or the same court. Following previous binding decisions brings uniformity in decision making, not following would result in confusion. It is well settled that Article 141 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to declare the law and not to enact the law, which essentially is the function of the legislature. To declare the law means to interpret the law. This interpretation of law is binding on all the Courts in India.
    [Show full text]
  • No Justice in Utah's Justice Courts: Constitutional Issues, Systemic Problems, and the Failure to Protect Defendants in Utah's Infamous Local Courts Samuel P
    Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement Volume 2012 Article 2 2012 No Justice in Utah's Justice Courts: Constitutional Issues, Systemic Problems, and the Failure to Protect Defendants in Utah's Infamous Local Courts Samuel P. Newton Teresa L. Welch Neal G. Hamilton Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/onlaw Part of the Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Newton, Samuel P.; Welch, Teresa L.; and Hamilton, Neal G. (2012) "No Justice in Utah's Justice Courts: Constitutional Issues, Systemic Problems, and the Failure to Protect Defendants in Utah's Infamous Local Courts," Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement: Vol. 2012 , Article 2. Available at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/onlaw/vol2012/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Utah Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah OnLaw: The tU ah Law Review Online Supplement by an authorized editor of Utah Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NO JUSTICE IN UTAH’S JUSTICE COURTS: CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS, AND THE FAILURE TO PROTECT † DEFENDANTS IN UTAH’S INFAMOUS LOCAL COURTS Samuel P. Newton,* Teresa L. Welch,** & Neal G. Hamilton*** [T]here’ll be no Justice of the Peace for you; just a big piece of justice.1 INTRODUCTION Justice courts2 could be called the most loved and hated court in the judicial system. The justices of the peace who preside over the courts are equally polarizing figures. The courts have been called “a powerful, multifaceted, local legal institution”3 which “helped design and weave together the social, economic, and political fabric”4 of American society.
    [Show full text]
  • Examples of Meritorious Summary Judgment Motions
    Examples of meritorious summary judgment motions By: Douglas H. Wilkins and Daniel I. Small February 13, 2020 Our last two columns addressed the real problem of overuse of summary judgment. Underuse is vanishingly rare. Even rarer (perhaps non-existent) is the case in which underuse ends up making a difference in the long run. But there are lessons to be learned by identifying cases in which you really should move for summary judgment. It is important to provide a reference point for evaluating the wisdom of filing a summary judgment motion. Here are some non-exclusive examples of good summary judgment candidates. Unambiguous written document: Perhaps the most common subject matter for a successful summary judgment motion is the contracts case or collections matter in which the whole dispute turns upon the unambiguous terms of a written note, contract, lease, insurance policy, trust or other document. See, e.g. United States Trust Co. of New York v. Herriott, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 131 (1980). The courts have said, quite generally, that “interpretation of the meaning of a term in a contract” is a question of law for the court. EventMonitor, Inc. v. Leness, 473 Mass. 540, 549 (2016). That doesn’t mean all questions of contract interpretation — just the unambiguous language. When the language of a contract is ambiguous, it is for the fact-finder to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties. See Acushnet Company v. Beam, Inc., 92 Mass. App. Ct. 687, 697 (2018). Ambiguous contracts are therefore not fodder for summary judgment. Ironically, there may be some confusion about what “unambiguous” means.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Summary Judgment Motion? Notice for Parties Who Do Not Have a Lawyer
    What is a Summary Judgment Motion? Notice for Parties Who Do Not Have a Lawyer A summary judgment motion was filed in your case. A summary judgment motion asks the court to decide this case without having a trial. Here are some important things to know. What is summary judgment? Summary judgment is a way for one party to win their case without a trial. The party can ask for summary judgment for part of the case or for the whole case. What happens if I ignore the motion? If you do not respond to the summary judgment motion, you can lose your case without the judge hearing from you. If you are the plaintiff or petitioner in the case, that means that your case can be dismissed. If you are the defendant or respondent, that means the plaintiff or petitioner can get everything they asked for in the complaint. How do I respond to a summary judgment motion? You can file a brief and tell the judge about the law and the facts that support your side of the case. A brief is not evidence and the facts that you write about in your brief need to be supported by evidence. You can file sworn affidavits, declarations, and other paperwork to support your case. An affidavit or declaration is a sworn statement of fact that is based on personal knowledge and is admissible as evidence. If you are a plaintiff or petitioner, you cannot win a summary judgment motion just by saying what is in your complaint. Instead, you need to give evidence such as affidavits or declarations.
    [Show full text]
  • Plaintiff Must Prove Service on Motion to Vacate Default Judgment by Erin Louise Palmer , Litigation News Contributing Editor – May 12, 2015
    Plaintiff Must Prove Service on Motion to Vacate Default Judgment By Erin Louise Palmer , Litigation News Contributing Editor – May 12, 2015 Service by certified mail is insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden in a motion to vacate a default judgment, according to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania . In Myers v. Moore , the district court granted the defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment of more than $1 million where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants had actual knowledge of the lawsuit and where the plaintiff failed to establish that she properly served the complaint on defendants or their authorized agents. Observers question how a plaintiff would satisfy these evidentiary hurdles. Plaintiff Awarded $1 Million Default Judgment The lawsuit arises out of a stage-diving incident at a music venue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. During a performance, the lead singer of the band Fishbone, Angelo C. Moore, dove into the crowd and knocked over the plaintiff, causing her serious injuries. The plaintiff sued Moore, John Noorwood Fisher (Fishbone’s bass player), Fishbone, Fishbone’s manager, and other parties associated with the venue for negligence and civil conspiracy in producing the concert and failing to warn the audience that the concert would feature stage diving. The plaintiff also sued Moore, Fisher, and Fishbone for assault and battery. After the plaintiff reached settlements with some of the defendants, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the non-settling defendants, including Moore and Fisher. The plaintiff brought another action on February 3, 2012, against the non-settling defendants for negligence, civil conspiracy, and assault and battery.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
    TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Table of Contents SECTION ONE. (c) Where to File. GENERAL PROVISIONS (d) Order of the Court. Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Local Rules of Courts of Rule 5. Fees in Civil Cases Appeals Rule 6. Representation by Counsel 1.1. Scope. 6.1. Lead Counsel 1.2. Local Rules (a) For Appellant. (a) Promulgation. (b) For a Party Other Than Appellant. (b) Copies. (c) How to Designate. (c) Party's Noncompliance. 6.2. Appearance of Other Attorneys Rule 2. Suspension of Rules 6.3. To Whom Communications Sent Rule 3. Definitions; Uniform Terminology 6.4. Nonrepresentation Notice 3.1. Definitions (a) In General. (b) Appointed Counsel. 3.2. Uniform Terminology in Criminal Cases 6.5. Withdrawal (a) Contents of Motion. Rule 4. Time and Notice Provisions (b) Delivery to Party. (c) If Motion Granted. 4.1. Computing Time (d) Exception for Substitution of (a) In General. Counsel. (b) Clerk's Office Closed or Inaccessible. 6.6. Agreements of Parties or Counsel 4.2. No Notice of Trial Court’s Judgment Rule 7. Substituting Parties in Civil Case (a) Additional Time to File Documents. 7.1. Parties Who Are Not Public Officers (1) In general. (a) Death of a Party. (2) Exception for restricted appeal. (1) Civil Cases. (b) Procedure to Gain Additional Time. (2) Criminal Cases. (c) The Court’s Order. (b) Substitution for Other Reasons. 4.3. Periods Affected by Modified 7.2. Public Officers Judgment in Civil Case (a) Automatic Substitution of Officer. (a) During Plenary-Power Period. (b) Abatement. (b) After Plenary Power Expires.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Dispositive Motions: a Basic Breakdown
    Civil Dispositive Motions: A Basic Breakdown 1) Simplified Timeline: Motion for 12(b)(6) Motions JNOV** Summary Judgment Motions* Motion for New Trial Motion Motion for D.V. for D.V. (Rul 10 days Discovery and Mediation Plaintiff‟s Defendant‟s Evidence Evidence Process Complaint Trial Jury‟s Entry of Judgment Filed Begins Verdict * Defendant may move at any time. Plaintiff must wait until 30 days after commencement of action. **Movant must have moved for d.v. after close of evidence. 2) Pre-Trial Motions: Rule 12(b)(6) and Summary Judgment A. Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss 1. Challenge the sufficiency of the complaint on its face. Movant asks the court to dismiss the complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 2. Standard: The court may grant the motion if the allegations in the complaint are insufficient or defective as a matter of law in properly stating a claim for relief. For example: a) The complaint is for fraud, which requires specific pleading, but a required element of fraud is not alleged. 1 b) The complaint alleges breach of contract, but incorporates by reference (and attaches) a contract that is unenforceable as a matter of law. c) The complaint alleges a claim against a public official in a context in which that official has immunity as a matter of law. 3. The court only looks at the complaint (and documents incorporated by reference). a) If the court looks outside the complaint, the motion is effectively converted to a summary judgment and should be treated under the provisions of Rule 56.
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Code Offenses by Punishment Range Office of the Attorney General 2
    PENAL CODE BYOFFENSES PUNISHMENT RANGE Including Updates From the 85th Legislative Session REV 3/18 Table of Contents PUNISHMENT BY OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................... 2 PENALTIES FOR REPEAT AND HABITUAL OFFENDERS .......................................................... 4 EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCES ................................................................................................... 7 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 4 ................................................................................................. 8 INCHOATE OFFENSES ........................................................................................................... 8 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 5 ............................................................................................... 11 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON ....................................................................................... 11 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 6 ............................................................................................... 18 OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY ......................................................................................... 18 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 7 ............................................................................................... 20 OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY .......................................................................................... 20 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 8 ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Purpose of Compensatory Damages in Tort and Fraudulent Misrepresentation
    LENS FINAL 12/1/2010 5:47:02 PM Honest Confusion: The Purpose of Compensatory Damages in Tort and Fraudulent Misrepresentation Jill Wieber Lens∗ I. INTRODUCTION Suppose that a plaintiff is injured in a rear-end collision car accident. Even though the rear-end collision was not a dramatic accident, the plaintiff incurred extensive medical expenses because of a preexisting medical condition. Through a negligence claim, the plaintiff can recover compensatory damages based on his medical expenses. But is it fair that the defendant should be liable for all of the damages? It is not as if he rear-ended the plaintiff on purpose. Maybe the fact that defendant’s conduct was not reprehensible should reduce the amount of damages that the plaintiff recovers. Any first-year torts student knows that the defendant’s argument will not succeed. The defendant’s conduct does not control the amount of the plaintiff’s compensatory damages. The damages are based on the plaintiff’s injury because, in tort law, the purpose of compensatory damages is to make the plaintiff whole by putting him in the same position as if the tort had not occurred.1 But there are tort claims where the amount of compensatory damages is not always based on the plaintiff’s injury. Suppose that a defendant fraudulently misrepresents that a car for sale is brand-new. The plaintiff then offers to purchase the car for $10,000. Had the car actually been new, it would have been worth $15,000, but the car was instead worth only $10,000. As they have for a very long time, the majority of jurisdictions would award the plaintiff $5000 in compensatory damages 2 based on the plaintiff’s expected benefit of the bargain.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellant's Reply Brief
    __________________________________________________________________ IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS, 450 S. State Street, Salt Lake City. Utah 84078 (801) 578-3900 __________________________________________________________________ MACAELA DANYELE DAY, : APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF Appellee, : vs. : Case No. 20190277 TYLER BARNES, : Appellant. : APPEAL FROM FINAL ORDER REGARDING RELOCATION THE HONORABLE DAVID M. CONNORS PRESIDING ORAL ARGUMENT AND PUBLISHED OPINION REQUESTED __________________________________________________________________ THEODORE R. WECKEL, JR. ERIC B. BARNES Counsel for Appellant Counsel for Appellee 299 S. Main Street, Suite 1300 47 N. Main Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Kaysville, UT 84037 Telephone: (801) 535-4385 Telephone: (801) 801-546-3874 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . ii-iii ARGUMENT I. MACAELA’S DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT WAS PRESERVED. 1-5 II. TYLER’S SUFFICIENCY/MARSHALING ARGUMENT FAILS. 5-10 III. REVERSAL IS WARRANTED FOR ERIC BARNES’S ACTIONS. 10- 12 . CONCLUSION . 12 -13 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . 13 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Day v. Barnes, 2018 UT App. 143, 427 P.3d 1272 . 2 Farley v. Utah County, 2019 UT App 45, 440 P.3d 856 . 9 Hudema v. Carpenter, 1999 UT App. 290, 989 P.2d 491 . 8 Paryzek v. Paryzek, 776 P.2d 78 (UT App. 1989) . 6 Pledger v. Cox, 626 P.2d 415 (UT 1981) . 3 Robertson v. Robertson, 2016 UT App. 55, 370 P.3d 569 . 6, 8 Sterling Fiduciaries, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 2017 UT App. 135, 402 P.3d 130 . 10 United States v. Parker, 101 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 1996) . 1, 2 ii STATUTES U.C.A. § 30-3-10 . 5 U.C.A. § 30-3-10.2 .
    [Show full text]