<?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; Utah Supreme Court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lexutah.com/tag/utah-supreme-court/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>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>A Final Order in Utah State Court Automatically Disposes of Any Prior Inconsistent Rulings</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/a-final-order-automatically-disposes-of-any-prior-inconsistent-rulings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/a-final-order-automatically-disposes-of-any-prior-inconsistent-rulings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:35:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Final Order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/a-final-order-automatically-disposes-of-any-prior-inconsistent-rulings/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It seems like this principle comes up more often than it should: “When a final disposition of a case is entered by a district court, any unresolved motions inconsistent with that disposition are deemed resolved by implication.”  State v. Mullins, 2005 UT 43, ¶ 8, 116 P.3d 374.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/in-the-news/a-final-order-automatically-disposes-of-any-prior-inconsistent-rulings/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>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>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>
		<item>
		<title>Utah Supreme Court Apportions Medical Expenses in Worker&#8217;s Compensation Cases</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/utah-supreme-court-apportions-medical-expenses-in-workers-compensation-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/utah-supreme-court-apportions-medical-expenses-in-workers-compensation-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:48:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Rules & Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical expenses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers Compensation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/?p=108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reversing a long-held position of the Labor Commission, the Utah Supreme Court held in Smith v. Labor Commission, 2009 UT 19, __ P.3d __, that when an industrial injury is compensable at less than 100% and the petitioner’s injury is apportioned among work-related and non-work-related causes, the compensation—including medical expenses—is apportioned as well.  The Labor [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/utah-supreme-court-apportions-medical-expenses-in-workers-compensation-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Utah Legislature May Materially Alter Medical Malpractice Claims</title>
		<link>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/utah-legislature-may-materially-alter-medical-malpractice-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/utah-legislature-may-materially-alter-medical-malpractice-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:09:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Reich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Rules & Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Expert witness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexutah.com/?p=80</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Utah Legislature currently has a bill before it, SB 79, that would increase the standard of proof required in medical malpractice cases against health care providers, i.e., doctors and hospitals, to a clear and convincing evidence standard for all care provided in the emergency department.  The heightened standard would apply until the patient is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lexutah.com/new-rules-laws/utah-legislature-may-materially-alter-medical-malpractice-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

