Larsen v. Wright

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided January 6, 2012

Court of Appeals of Utah · decided 2012-01-06

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 2012

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“failed to identify a substantial question for review warranting further consideration”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Reynolds v. Woodall

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2012-01-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 DECISION

PER CURIAM:

¶2 11 James H. Larsen appeals the trial court's order dismissing his complaint. *891 This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for review. Larsen failed to respond to the motion. As a result of his failure to respond and the lack of a viable legal issue identified in his docketing statement, he has failed to identify a substantial question for review warranting further consideration by this court. See Utah R.App. P. 10. Absent a substantial issue for review, this court may summarily affirm a district court's order.

¶3 { 2 Affirmed.