Opinion ID: 2585384
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether DPSI's Attorney Was Denied Opportunity to Cross-Examine

Text: ¶ 56 DPSI also claims by way of affidavit that its attorney asked for and was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the[ ] witnesses and thereby DPSI was denied due process. Once again, DPSI has made a conclusory statement unsupported by facts. See Winter, 820 P.2d at 919. The affiant did not provide any specific examples of DPSI's attorney making a request or of that request being denied. Neither did the affiant point to any objection made during the time of the meeting as to which ruling denied DPSI's attorney the opportunity to cross-examine. Absolutely no specific facts are given to support the conclusion that DPSI's attorney was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. ¶ 57 In fact, the record shows to the contrary. The minutes reflect that Wellsville's attorney stated that [DPSI's attorney] will be able to cross-examine any of the witnesses. After the first witness testified, DPSI's attorney questioned the witness as to what he believed was the source of the smells. In addition, after the mayor opened the meeting to public comment, DPSI's attorney asked one of the citizens if he could distinguish between two different kinds of smells. ¶ 58 As stated before, to preclude summary judgment DPSI must respond to Wellsville's motion by setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Utah R. Civ. P. 56(e). DPSI has not met that burden. Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that DPSI's argument had no merit and DPSI was not denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the business license proceedings.