<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>LexUtah &#187; New Rules &amp; Laws</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lexutah.com/category/new-rules-laws/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lexutah.com</link>
	<description>Utah's Legal Scene</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:06:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Utah Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Products Liability Statute</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/utah-supreme-court-upholds-constitutionality-of-products-liability-statute/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/utah-supreme-court-upholds-constitutionality-of-products-liability-statute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:56:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Rules & Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apportionment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enhanced injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joint and several liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presumption of non-defectiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Products Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Restatement of Torts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/?p=216</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Utah Supreme Court issued Egbert v. Nissan (&#8220;Egbert II”) in which it has expressly held: 1) The rebuttable presumption of non-defectiveness in product liability cases is constitutional and has been effective in Utah for more than 20 years; and 2) Restatement (Third) Torts section 16(b-d) regarding enhanced injury claims is rejected.  An “enhanced injury [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/utah-supreme-court-upholds-constitutionality-of-products-liability-statute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Failure to Issue &#8220;Litigation Hold&#8221; Could Result in Sanctions and Attorney&#8217;s Fees</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/failure-to-issue-litigation-hold-could-result-in-sanctions-and-attorneys-fees/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/failure-to-issue-litigation-hold-could-result-in-sanctions-and-attorneys-fees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:34:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Rules & Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electronic discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation hold]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/failure-to-issue-litigation-hold-could-result-in-sanctions-and-attorneys-fees/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The recent S.D.N.Y. decision in Pension Committee of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, 05 Civ. 9016, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1839, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2010, and amended, Jan. 15, 2010), highlights that litigation requires more than simply responding to discovery once it is initiated by a formal request.  [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/failure-to-issue-litigation-hold-could-result-in-sanctions-and-attorneys-fees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Daniels v. Gamma: a Basketful of Medical Malpractice Rulings</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/daniels-v-gamma-a-basketful-of-rulings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/daniels-v-gamma-a-basketful-of-rulings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:20:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Rules & Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiduciary Duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Informed consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal cause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Punitive damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statute of Limitations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/daniels-v-gamma-a-basketful-of-rulings/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Daniels, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a number of medical malpractice issues together with general trial issues.  Here is the gist: 1. The statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action does not begin to run until the patient discovers the legal cause of his/her injury.  “Legal cause” includes the fact that the patient [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/daniels-v-gamma-a-basketful-of-rulings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The New Pleading Standard in Federal Court Requires Greater Factual Content</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/the-new-pleading-standard-in-federal-court-requires-greater-factual-content/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/the-new-pleading-standard-in-federal-court-requires-greater-factual-content/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Rules & Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bell Atlantic v. Twombly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iqbal v. Ashcroft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motion to dismiss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pleading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pleading standard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule 8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/the-new-pleading-standard-in-federal-court-requires-greater-factual-content/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The United States Supreme Court is your new friend in seeking dismissal in federal district court.  Its Iqbal v. Ashcroft has been heralded as the “most significant Supreme Court decision in a decade for day-to-day litigation in the federal courts.”  Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) has filed legislation to force a reversal of Iqbal.  The uproar [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/the-new-pleading-standard-in-federal-court-requires-greater-factual-content/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Utah Federal Court Is Where I Want to Be . . .</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/federal-court-is-where-i-want-to-be/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/federal-court-is-where-i-want-to-be/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:39:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Rules & Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[10th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule 56]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[summary judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/?p=172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 10th Circuit recently reviewed the differing standards and burdens applicable in motions for summary judgment in Milne v. USA Cycling.  The court reviewed both Pearce v. Utah Athletic Foundation, 179 P.3d 760, 767 (Utah 2008) and Berry v. Greater Park City Co., 171 P.3d 442, 449 (Utah 2007) related to the proper summary judgment [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/federal-court-is-where-i-want-to-be/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;[W]e see no harm in allowing [counsel] to use a cultural reference as shorthand [in closing argument] . . .</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/we-see-no-harm-in-allowing-counsel-to-use-a-cultural-reference-as-shorthand-in-closing-argument/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/we-see-no-harm-in-allowing-counsel-to-use-a-cultural-reference-as-shorthand-in-closing-argument/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:09:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Rules & Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Closing argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[McDonald's]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/?p=170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[to make the point that, in [counsel’s] opinion, [plaintiff’s] damages methodology was likely to render this jury&#8217;s verdict excessive.”  Boyle v. Christensen, 2009 UT App 241.  The Court makes it clear you should feel free to refer to iconic events or cases to assist your argument.  Here, counsel referred to the “McDonald’s” excessive verdict to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/we-see-no-harm-in-allowing-counsel-to-use-a-cultural-reference-as-shorthand-in-closing-argument/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Make a Clean Exit From Utah Federal Court</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/make-a-clean-exit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/make-a-clean-exit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:05:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Rules & Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Local Rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States district court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/?p=161</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Remember that when withdrawing as counsel in Utah Federal District Court that a local rule governs the process: DUCivR 83-1.4 ATTORNEYS &#8211; WITHDRAWAL OR REMOVAL OF ATTORNEY.  Please do not file a plain motion for withdrawal like you would in state court because the federal judge will likely deny it and you will be stuck [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/make-a-clean-exit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Utah Law: Law of the Case Doctrine vs. Mandate Rule</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/law-of-the-case-doctrine-vs-mandate-rule/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/law-of-the-case-doctrine-vs-mandate-rule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:43:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New Rules & Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/?p=155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Utah Supreme Court recently clarified a bit of Utah law that has vexed me in a number of my cases recently: when and to what degree a district court is bound by its previous decisions in a case. In Mid-America Pipeline Co. v. Four-Four, Inc., 2009 UT 43, __ P.3d __, the Supreme Court [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/law-of-the-case-doctrine-vs-mandate-rule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Remember You Can Use an Unsworn Declaration in the Place of an Affidavit</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/remember-you-can-use-an-unsworn-declaration-in-the-place-of-an-affidavit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/remember-you-can-use-an-unsworn-declaration-in-the-place-of-an-affidavit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:25:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New Rules & Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/?p=153</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You may recall that in 2008 the Utah Legislature made it possible under Utah Code Ann. 78B-5-705 to submit an unsworn declaration whenever the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, Civil Procedure, or Evidence call for an affidavit.  You should use the following magical phrase to make sure the declaration meets the statute: “I declare [or [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/remember-you-can-use-an-unsworn-declaration-in-the-place-of-an-affidavit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Settlement Agreements Revisited</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/settlement-agreements-revisited-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/settlement-agreements-revisited-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:29:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New Rules & Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prejudgment interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/?p=149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As an update to my post on securing your settlement agreement, there is one more point to note: if you want the court to address certain issues that may depend on the existence of an admission of liability, it must be contained in the settlement agreement.  In Iron Head Construction, Inc. v. Gurney, the Utah [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/settlement-agreements-revisited-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

