Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court hears challenge over jurisdiction and a defective verdict after trial de novo in arbitration case
Summary
The Utah Court of Appeals heard competing arguments about (1) whether a party may appeal a district-court judgment after invoking a statutory 3-21 arbitration and trial de novo and (2) whether a trial judge abused discretion when reinstructing the jury after a verdict form returned with damages left blank.
At oral argument, counsel debated whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear an appeal after a party proceeded from a statutory 3-21 arbitration to a trial de novo in district court, and whether the trial judge abused his discretion in addressing a jury verdict that omitted a damages number.
Daniel Birchford, identified at the hearing as representing the appellant, told the court, “The right to appeal is strictly statutory. And the legislature has granted a plenary right of appeal from the district court in all civil cases.” Birchford argued that the statutory arbitration scheme at issue (referred to throughout argument as a “3-21 arbitration”) contains language that must be read alongside the broader statutory appeal right and…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
