Brooks v. Department of Employment Security

736 P.2d 241, 56 Utah Adv. Rep. 33, 1987 Utah App. LEXIS 548
Court of Appeals of Utah·Decided April 24, 1987·No. No. 860284-CA·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

PER CURIAM:

In the above case, plaintiffs counsel filed with this Court a “docketing statement” that does not comply with Rule 9 of the Rules of the Utah Court of Appeals. The statement filed fails to set forth any statutory authority or rule which properly confers jurisdiction upon this Court., Other information required by Rule 9 is also lacking and necessary documents are not attached. R. Utah Ct.App. 9(d).

Docketing statements must fully comply with Rule 9. Failure to comply will result in dismissal of the appeal, particularly when counsel ignores our request that the statement be properly amended. Gregory v. Fourthwest Investments Ltd., 785 P.2d 33 (Utah 1987); R. Utah Ct.App. 9(e).

The appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brooks v. Department of Employment Security, 736 P.2d 241, 56 Utah Adv. Rep. 33, 1987 Utah App. LEXIS 548 (Utah Ct. App. 1987).

736 P.2d 241 (Brooks v. Department of Employment Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hayes v. State
785 P.2d 33 (Court of Appeals of Alaska, 1990)