Woolston v. Brock

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---Marilyn P. Woolston, Petitioner and Appellee, v. Margie A. Brock, Respondent and Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20080256-CA F I L E D (September 5, 2008) 2008 UT App 328 ----Third District, West Jordan Department, 070419656 The Honorable Michele M. Christiansen Attorneys: Margie A. Brock, Sandy, Appellant Pro Se Marilyn P. Woolston, South Jordan, Appellee Pro Se ----- Before Judges Thorne, Bench, and Orme. PER CURIAM: Margie A. Brock appeals the trial court's order entering a civil stalking injunction against her. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition. For this court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction, "an appellant must allege the lower court committed an error that the appellate court should correct." Allen v. Friel, 2008 UT 56, ¶ 7. An appellant must allege specific errors of the lower court. See id. Brock fails to allege specific errors of the lower court reviewable on appeal. Brock reargues the "facts" she asserted in her position below but does not identify any legal error of the court. She has also presented new information on appeal, which cannot be considered by this court. See Utah R. App. P. 11; Olson v. ParkCraig-Olson, Inc., 815 P.2d 1356, 1359 (Utah Ct. App. 1991). Accordingly, there is no substantial question for review. Utah R. App. P. 10(e). Affirmed. ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Associate Presiding Judge ______________________________ Russell W. Bench, Judge ______________________________ Gregory K. Orme, Judge 20080256-CA 2 See

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.