Opinion ID: 2585508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶ 5 In order to sustain a grant of summary judgment, there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). This court reviews such a grant for correctness, viewing the facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Peterson v. Coca-Cola USA, 2002 UT 42, ¶ 7, 48 P.3d 941 (internal quotations omitted). This standard is somewhat complicated in this case because determinations about whether an employee is acting within the scope of employment are questions of fact. See State Tax Comm'n v. Indus. Comm'n of Utah, 685 P.2d 1051, 1052 (Utah 1984) (noting course of employment is question of fact in worker's compensation cases). Nevertheless, in this case the facts are undisputed and we review such matters for correction of error. See Drake v. Indus. Comm'n of Utah, 939 P.2d 177, 181 (Utah 1997) (reviewing empirical facts for clear error but allowing no deference when evaluating the legal effect of those facts). Thus, in this case, we review the district court's grant of partial summary judgment for correctness.