Thomas v. Thomas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---Heather Thomas, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Jack Thomas, Respondent and Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20060981-CA F I L E D (May 24, 2007) 2007 UT App 180 ----Seventh District, Price Department, 064700128 Honorable Bruce K. Halliday Attorneys: Samuel S. Bailey, Price, for Appellant Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian Ad Litem ----- Before Judges Bench, McHugh, and Thorne. PER CURIAM: Heather Thomas (Plaintiff) appeals a portion of a protective order relating to a third party. We dismiss the appeal on the basis of mootness. "An issue on appeal is considered moot when the requested judicial relief cannot affect the rights of the litigants." State v. Vicente, 2004 UT 6,ΒΆ3, 84 P.3d 1191 (quotations and citation omitted). Plaintiff challenges the protective order on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to restrict contact with the third party in question. However, during the course of this appeal, Plaintiff sought and obtained a modified protective order that no longer restricts such contact. Consequently, a decision on the issue raised by Plaintiff would have no impact on her rights. See Merhish v. H.A. Folsom & Assocs., 646 P.2d 731, 732-33 (Utah 1982); see also Franklin Fin. v. New Empire Dev. Co., 659 P.2d 1040, 1043 (Utah 1983) ("An appeal is moot if during the pendency of the appeal circumstances change so that the controversy is eliminated, thereby rendering the relief requested impossible or of no legal effect."). "When an issue is moot, judicial policy dictates against our rendering an advisory opinion." State v. Sims, 881 P.2d 840, 841 (Utah 1994) (quotations and citations omitted). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. ______________________________ Russell W. Bench, Presiding Judge ______________________________ Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge 20060981-CA 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
