So. SLC v. BarlowAnnotate this Case
South Salt Lake City,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
Matthew I. Barlow,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 20010133-CA
F I L E D
May 10, 2001 2001 UT App 154 -----
Third District, Murray Department
The Honorable Michael K. Burton
Matthew I. Barlow, Draper, Appellant Pro Se
H. Craig Hall, Paul H. Proctor, and Matthew B. Janzen, South Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Orme.
This matter is before the court on sua sponte motion for summary disposition. In our motion, we questioned our jurisdiction under Utah Code Ann. § 78-5-120 (Supp. 2000), which provides that "[t]he judgment after trial de novo may not be appealed unless the court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance." We also observed that the case appeared to present issues so insubstantial as not to merit further proceedings in this court. See Utah R. App. P. 10(a)(2). The motion directed the parties to file memoranda addressing those issues.
Although appellant asserts that he challenged the constitutionality of "the statute" in the justice court, he does not identify which statute was challenged, what constitutional provision he relied upon, or how the trial court's ruling, if such exists, was erroneous. Appellant has not shown that the appeal was taken from a lower court's ruling on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.
Unless the trial court rules
on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance, we have no jurisdiction
over the appeal, and the trial court's decision is final. See State
v. Hinson, 966 P.2d 273, 277 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal.
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Judith M. Billings, Judge
Gregory K. Orme, Judge