9:44 → 10:09(25s)
Presiding judge (S1) opened the court, said the panel will consider four cases today and that one matter—MFRE v. Saratoga Springs, case no. 20250146—was scheduled for oral argument; asked counsel to take appearances. The judge apologized for the court's oversight in not earlier ruling on motions to expedite.
The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in MFRE v. Saratoga Springs (case no. 20250146) about whether a later municipal notice and packet can effectively ‘‘replace’’ an earlier notice and restart statutory time periods tied to eminent‑domain procedures. Appellant counsel argued that, in a strict‑compliance setting, repeated full packets risk confusing a landowner and that the most recent notice should control; city counsel said the repeated packet merely reiterated rights and caused no prejudice. The court took the matter under advisement, noting outstanding motions to expedite and a request to resolve without a written opinion.
