Automatic Control Products v. Tel-Tech

7 Citing cases

  1. Rothwell v. Rothwell

    2023 UT App. 50 (Utah Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 7 times

    See, e.g., Automatic Control Prods. Corp. v. Tel-Tech, Inc., 780 P.2d 1258, 1260, 1264 (Utah 1989) (majority opinion and Zimmerman, J., concurring in the result) (approving the adoption of findings of fact and conclusions of law, prepared after “the court took the case under advisement” but before the court had "decided how the case was to come out," "without modifying or changing them in any respect" because there was "no indication from the record . . . that the trial judge failed to adequately deliberate and consider the merits of the case"); Twitchell, 2022 UT App 49, ¶ 11 n.2 (considering a situation where "the court did not announce a ruling from the bench at the conclusion of the trial" and, instead, "asked both parties to prepare proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law," ultimately adopting, "with only a few minor alterations," one party's proposed "findings of fact and conclusions of law in their entirety"). ¶37 In the introduction to its findings and conclusions, the court here stated that it had reached its decision after "hav

  2. Brough v. Brough

    2009 UT App. 344 (Utah Ct. App. 2009)

    "In determining whether the trial court adequately participated in adopting findings prepared by counsel, Utah's appellate courts look to the record and will affirm the findings if there is `no indication from the record . . . that the trial judge failed to adequately deliberate and consider the merits of the case.'" State v. James, 858 P.2d 1012, 1015 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (omission in original) (quoting Automatic Control Prods. Corp. v. Tel-Tech, Inc., 780 P.2d 1258, 1260 (Utah 1989)). "The discretion of adopting the findings as submitted to the trial court is exclusively in that court as long as the findings are not clearly contrary to the evidence."

  3. West v. Grand County

    942 P.2d 337 (Utah 1997)   Cited 17 times
    Noting in a civil case that a finding of excusable neglect is prohibited "based solely on a court clerk's failure to mail notice"

    "Our rules . . . put the burden on counsel to check periodically with the clerk of the court as to the date of entry. . . ." Automatic Control Prods. Corp. v. Tel-Tech, Inc., 780 P.2d 1258, 1260 (Utah 1989). Again, were no other extenuating facts present, an attorney's failure to check with the clerk should not alone suffice to support a finding of excusable neglect.

  4. State v. Rio Vista Oil, LTD

    786 P.2d 1343 (Utah 1990)   Cited 40 times

    We must assume that he found them satisfactory in all particulars. See Automatic Control Prods. Corp. v. TelTech, Inc., 780 P.2d 1258, 1260 (Utah 1989); id. at 1263 (Zimmerman, J., concurring). Second, we note the applicable standard of review.

  5. Henshaw v. Estate of King

    173 P.3d 876 (Utah Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that the entry of a proposed order one day before the five-day period expired was not error

    Furthermore, "[o]ur rules . . . put the burden on counsel to check periodically with the clerk of the court as to the date of entry of the findings and judgment so that post-trial motions may be timely filed." Automatic Control Prods. Corp. v. Tel-Tech, Inc., 780 P.2d 1258, 1260 (Utah 1989) (holding that trial court did not err by failing to notify counsel promptly after signing findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment); see also West v. Grand County, 942 P.2d 337, 340 (Utah 1997). Because Henshaw failed to make such a showing, we conclude that the trial court did not exceed its discretion by denying Henshaw's rule 60(b) motion.

  6. Whitear v. Labor Com'n

    973 P.2d 982 (Utah Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 31 times
    Stating that when challenging the labor commission's findings of fact in a workers' compensation case where the petitioner failed to properly marshal the evidence, the court of appeals may decline to consider the petitioner's challenge to the findings of fact and affirm the commission's findings

    While it is true that custom, workload, and lack of staff have combined to make delegation to counsel more the norm in the district courts of this state, this approach is more a necessary evil than a model to be emulated. See generally Automatic Control Prods. Corp. v. Tel-Tech, Inc., 780 P.2d 1258, 1263-64 (Utah 1989) (Zimmerman, J., concurring in the result). Indeed, whether due to increased availability of law clerks, providing judges with personal computers, a change in the local legal culture, or some combination of factors, we are seeing increasing numbers of cases where the findings of fact are simply included in a memorandum decision prepared by the trial judge.

  7. State v. James

    858 P.2d 1012 (Utah Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that the Utah Constitution does not require electronic recording of custodial interrogations

    In determining whether the trial court adequately participated in adopting findings prepared by counsel, Utah's appellate courts look to the record and will affirm the findings if there is "no indication from the record . . . that the trial judge failed to adequately deliberate and consider the merits of the case." Automatic Control Products Corp. v. Tel-Tech, Inc., 780 P.2d 1258, 1260 (Utah 1989). See also Alta Indus. Ltd. v. Hurst, 846 P.2d 1282, 1286 (Utah 1993).