Opinion ID: 2631159
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: denial of oral argument

Text: ¶ 16 Brown contends that in order to effectively ensure the right of appeal provided by the Utah Constitution, oral argument should be allowed in all cases. She also argues that because the court of appeals did not specifically state its reason for denying oral argument, its denial was not warranted under the rules of appellate procedure and she was thus denied her right of appeal. Chick-Fil-A counters that neither the Utah Constitution nor the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure require oral argument to guarantee the right of appeal. ¶ 17 The Utah Constitution provides that there shall be in all cases an appeal of right from the court of original jurisdiction to a court with appellate jurisdiction over the cause. Utah Const. art. VIII, § 5. In addition, the rules of appellate procedure provide: In general[,][o]ral argument will be allowed in all cases unless the court concludes: (1) The appeal is frivolous; or (2) The dispositive issue or set of issues has been recently authoritatively decided; or (3) The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Utah R.App.P. 29(a). Clearly, while an appeal as of right exists, there is no specific right to oral argument under Utah law. In fact, rule 29 specifically states reasons for which an appellate court need not grant oral argument. Furthermore, we confirm the rationale used by the Utah Court of Appeals when it noted in State v. Palmer, 786 P.2d 248 (Utah Ct.App.1990), that the right to appeal is not denied when appellant files a notice of appeal, has an adequate opportunity to present his arguments to the appellate court with supporting authority, and the issues, arguments, and record are all considered and determined by an impartial panel of judges in accordance with applicable statutes and rules. Id. at 249. ¶ 18 In this case, Brown filed a notice of appeal and a docketing statement explaining her issues for review. She presented her arguments with supporting authority to the court of appeals in her initial brief and reply brief. The complete record was before the court of appeals, and the rules of appellate procedure provide that if the court concludes that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record, the court may deny oral argument. Utah R.App.P. 29(a)(3). ¶ 19 There is no requirement for an appellate court to state its reasoning for denying to hear oral argument, though it would have clarified the issue for certiorari if the court had done so here. We hold that the court of appeals did not err in declining to hear oral argument.