Additionally, it is the Ortons' burden to establish a reasonable basis for granting their petition for judicial review. See O'Rourke v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 830 P.2d 230, 232 (Utah 1992). DOMICILE
I. DOMICILE The Commission's determination of domicile is one of fact. O'Rourke v. State Tax Comm'n, 830 P.2d 230, 232 (Utah 1992). The standard of review for this matter is governed by statute.
¶ 59 In general, the law has long assigned the burden of proof to the petitioner, plaintiff, or appellant. See Cox v. Laycock , 2015 UT 20, ¶¶ 55, 58, 345 P.3d 689 (Lee, J., concurring); see also State v. Litherland , 2000 UT 76, ¶ 17, 12 P.3d 92 ("Appellants bear the burden of proof with respect to their appeals...."); Foote v. Clark , 962 P.2d 52, 55 (Utah 1998) (holding that parties seeking a remedy have the burden of producing evidence to buttress the requested award); O’Rourke v. Utah State Tax Comm’n , 830 P.2d 230, 232 (Utah 1992) (noting that on review of formal agency actions, "[t]he burden of proof lies with the petitioning party to establish a basis for the petition to be granted"). ¶ 60 But this rule is not absolute. For instance, when a defendant appeals a criminal conviction from justice court to district court under Utah Code section 78A-7-118, the district court conducts a trial de novo , where "[t]he state bears the same burden of establishing a defendant’s guilt ... as it would had the case originated there."
The determination of domicile is one of fact. See O'Rourke v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 830 P.2d 230, 232 (Utah 1992). For purposes of reviewing the Commission's findings of fact, we apply a substantial evidence standard. Salt Lake City S. R.R. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 1999 UT 90, ¶ 7, 987 P.2d 594. "Substantial evidence is that quantum and quality of relevant evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion."
However, as the party seeking relief from the Commission's action, Mitchell bears the burden of demonstrating that the Commission's determination was erroneous. O'Rourke v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 830 P.2d 230, 232 (Utah 1992). We conclude that she has failed to meet her burden here.
Bank One, Texas, N.A. v. Montle, 964 F.2d 48 (C.A. 1 Mass. 1992); Manthey v. Commissioner of Revenue, 468 N.W.2d 548 (Minn. 1991); O'Rourke v. Utah State Tax Commission, 830 P.2d 230, 232 (Utah 1992). . . . [I]t is the intention at the time of arrival which is important.
The only real issue, then, is whether the evidence adduced at the hearing supports the Commission's decision. The Commission's determination of domicile involves a question of fact. O'Rourke v. Utah Tax Comm'n, 830 P.2d 230, 232 (Utah 1992); Orton v. Utah Tax Comm'n, 864 P.2d 904, 908 (Utah App. 1993). When reviewing formal adjudicative proceedings commenced before the Commission, we "grant the commission deference concerning its written findings of fact, applying a substantial evidence standard on review."