South Salt Lake City v. WeisAnnotate this Case
South Salt Lake City,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
John T. Weis,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 990792-CA
F I L E D
December 2, 1999
1999 UT App 353 -----
Third District, Murray Department
The Honorable Joseph C. Fratto, Jr.
John T. Weis, Salt Lake City, Appellant Pro Se
H. Craig Hall, Matthew B. Janzen, and Paul H. Proctor, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Before Judges Greenwood, Bench, and Orme.
This matter is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition. We affirm.
A person not satisfied with a judgment rendered in the justice court is entitled to a trial de novo in the district court. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-5-120 (Supp. 1999). The judgment of the district court after trial de novo is final and "may not be appealed unless the court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance." Id.
Assuming that the district court ruled on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance, the only issue properly before this court would be the propriety of that ruling. See State v. Hinson, 966 P.2d 273, 276 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) ("By enacting . . . section 78-5-120 . . . , the Utah Legislature . . . specifically and intentionally limited the issues that may be appealed from a district court's judgment. . . . '[C]onventional' appellate jurisdiction is limited to only those issues attacking the validity or constitutionality of an ordinance or statute.") (emphasis added).
Appellant's constitutional challenge to the limited right of appeal set forth in section 78-5-120 has been previously adjudicated and denied. See City of Monticello v. Christensen, 788 P.2d 513, 518-19 (Utah 1990) (holding that Rule 26, section 78-5-120's predecessor, does not violate defendant's constitutional right to appeal and satisfies state constitution); Dean v. Henriod, 975 P.2d 946, 948 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (stating "it is settled that the right to an appeal from a court not of record is satisfied by provision for a trial de novo in a court of record") (citation omitted). Accordingly, appellant's challenge was properly denied by the district court.
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Associate Presiding Judge
Russell W. Bench, Judge
Gregory K. Orme, Judge