43674 research outputs found
Sort by
STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. JACQUAN DAVID WILSON, Defendant/Appellant. : Reply Brief
Get PDFRELY BRIEF OF APPELLANT
Appeal from Sentence, Judgment, Commitment entered on November 16, 2017, in theSecond District Court, Davis County the Honorable Robert J. Dale, presiding
ORAL ARGUMENT CALENDARE
STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. SCOTT ALAN RASMUSSEN, Defendant/Appellant. : Brief of Appellee
Get PDFBrief of Appellee
Appeal from convictions for one count of tax evasion, asecond-degree felony, and three counts of failure to render atax return, third-degree felonies, in the Third Judicial District,Salt Lake County, the Honorable Roger S. Dutson presidin
STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. REYNALDO THOMAS MARTINEZ, Defendant/Appellant. : Brief of Appellant
Get PDFBRIEF OF APPELLANT
On appeal from the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County,Honorable Paul B. Parker presidingDefendant is incarcerate
KATHY ENGLE, Appellant, vs. WENDE THRONE, Special Administrator and Trustee, JUDY ENGLE, ELDEAN ROY ENGLE, BRITTA LYNN WILCKEN, ALEXA THAYER, and BULLOCK LAW FIRM, Appellees. : Brief of Appellee
Get PDFBrief of Appellee Wende Throne
*REDACTED PUBLIC RECORD*
In the Matter of the Estate of Homer Engle, deceased.
Appeal from April 12, 2017 Order Closing Probate Based on Court\u27s Findings,Conclusions, and Order Filed on April 7, 2017, in the Third Judicial District,Salt Lake County, the Honorable Keith Kelly presiding
JOHN R. LATHAM, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. OFFICE OF RECOVERY SERVICES, Defendant/Appellee. : Reply Brief
Get PDFREPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT JOHN R. LATHAM
On Appeal from a Final Judgment in the Third Judicial District CourtCase No. 160904935, The Honorable Richard McKelvie presidin
VIVINT SOLAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and ARM SECURITY, INC., a Utah Corporation, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. DOUGLAS ROBINSON, an individual, Defendant/Appellee. : Brief of Appellee
Get PDFBRIEF OF APPELLEE
Appeal from the Fourth District Court, Utah County, from an order granting summaryjudgment and an award of attorney fees before the Honorable Thomas Lo
PIONEER BUILDERS COMPANY OF NEVADA, INC., a Nevada corporation n/k/a PIONEER BUILDERS COMPANY, INC., a Utah domesticated corporation, et al., Plaintiff/Appellee vs. K D A CORPORATION, a Utah corporation, et al., Defendant/Appellant. : Brief of Appellant
Get PDFBRIEF OF APPELLANTFrom the Final Orders of the First Judicial District Court, Cache County, UtahThe Honorable Brandon Maynard, Presiding(Oral Argument Requested
Chevron’s Pure Questions: Searching for Meaning in Ambiguity
Get PDFSince implied congressional intent is the basis for the Chevron doctrine, courts cannot simply presume that Congress intends all unclear statutes to signal deference to agencies. Instead, courts must make some inquiry into whether that rationale remains true under the particular circumstances. This Note contends, then, that the Chevron framework, from the outset, asks the wrong question. Instead of inquiring whether the statute is clear, courts should determine whether Congress intended courts to defer to an agency on the question of statutory interpretation. Instinctively deferring to an agency in the face of every ambiguity undermines congressional intent. While implied congressional intent is difficult to definitively ascertain in any particular circumstance, courts should nonetheless determine whether the question is one on which Congress is likely to wish courts to defer. The Note continues that, in attempting to approximate congressional intent regarding deference, the Chevron doctrine could significantly improve how effectively the doctrine shadows congressional intent by distinguishing between two types of statutory uncertainty, vagueness and ambiguity, two concepts courts have thus far conflated. When a court is faced with a lexical or syntactic ambiguity, the court should not defer to the agency. Courts should embrace their responsibility as experts in interpreting the law because when a provision is ambiguous rather than vague, Congress would prefer courts to follow the best reading of the words it enacted rather than following an agency’s permissible construction
Corpus Linguistics and the Criminal Law
Get PDFThis brief response to Ordinary Meaning and Corpus Linguistics, an article by Stefan Gries and Brian Slocum, explains why corpus linguistics represents a radical break from current statutory interpretation practice, and it argues that corpus linguistics ought not be adopted as an interpretive theory for criminal laws. Corpus linguistics has superficial appeal because it promises to increase predictability and to decrease the role of judges’ personal preferences in statutory interpretation. But there are reasons to doubt that corpus linguistics can achieve these goals. More importantly, corpus linguistics sacrifices other, more important values, including notice and accountability
Freedom of Religion in India: Current Issues and Supreme Court Acting as Clergy
Get PDFReligion is an indispensable part of human existence. Freedom of religion is considered as the third most important civil liberty after the right to life and personal liberty and the freedom of speech and expression. The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and acknowledges the individual’s autonomy in his or her relationship with God. However, the Supreme Court of India, through the creation and continued use of the essentiality test, has tried to reform religion by restricting the scope of this freedom. The judiciary has taken over the role of clergy in determining what essential and non-essential religious practices are. Moreover, the Court has applied the test in an inconsistent manner, repeatedly changing the method of determining essentiality, seriously undermining religious liberty. This Article examines these judgments to demonstrate the adverse impact of the essentiality test on religious freedom