KNIGHT ADJUSTMENT BUREAU v. Sanchez

2012 UT App 66, 273 P.3d 963, 703 Utah Adv. Rep. 16, 2012 WL 760597, 2012 Utah App. LEXIS 69
Court of Appeals of Utah·Decided March 8, 2012·No. 20110881-CA·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

T1 Eric M. Sanchez appeals the district court's order entered on August 31, 2011. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition. Sanchez does not oppose the motion for summary disposition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

T2 Rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the entry of the final order or judgment appealed. See Utah R.App. P. 4(a). If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 2000 UT App 299, ¶ 7, 13 P.3d 616. If this court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal, we have only the authority to dismiss the appeal. See Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct.App.1989).

T3 On August 31, 2011, the district court entered the final judgment in the underlying matter. © On October 3, 2011, Sanchez filed his notice of appeal in the district court. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See Serrato, 2000 UT App 299, ¶ 7, 13 P.3d 616. Thus, we are required to *964 dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Varian-Eimac, Inc., 767 P.2d at 570.

1 4 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

KNIGHT ADJUSTMENT BUREAU v. Sanchez, 2012 UT App 66, 273 P.3d 963, 703 Utah Adv. Rep. 16, 2012 WL 760597, 2012 Utah App. LEXIS 69 (Utah Ct. App. 2012).

2012 UT App 66 (KNIGHT ADJUSTMENT BUREAU v. Sanchez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Knight Adjustment Bureau v. Sanchez
2012 UT App 66 (Court of Appeals of Utah, 2012)