Opinion ID: 2631069
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Clarification of the Marshaling Requirement

Text: ¶ 16 During oral argument, Media argued that the court of appeals was required to dismiss Martinez's factual challenge to the Commission's order because Martinez failed to properly marshal the evidence. Media further argued that this failure alone constitutes reversible error. [2] Media's argument is not well-taken and, in fact, evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of the marshaling obligation. We accordingly pause to clarify it. ¶ 17 To successfully challenge an agency's factual findings, the party must marshall [sic] all of the evidence supporting the findings and show that despite the supporting facts, and in light of the conflicting or contradictory evidence, the findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Grace Drilling Co. v. Bd. of Review of Indus. Comm'n, 776 P.2d 63, 68 (Utah Ct.App.1989); accord Utah R.App. P. 24(a)(9) (A party challenging a fact finding must first marshal all record evidence that supports the challenged finding.). [3] This requires counsel to construct the evidence supporting the adversary's position, and then ferret out a fatal flaw in the evidence. West Valley City v. Majestic Inv. Co., 818 P.2d 1311, 1315 (Utah Ct.App.1991). Compliance with this undertaking helps ensure that the factual findings of the agency are overturned only when lacking in substantial evidence. ¶ 18 In our zeal to emphasize the importance of the marshaling requirement to parties, we have used language implying that appellate courts are strictly bound to affirm the accuracy of the agency's or trial court's factual findings in the absence of marshaling. See, e.g., United Park City Mines Co., 2006 UT 35, ¶ 32, 140 P.3d 1200 (Because [the defendant] has failed to marshal the evidence supporting the . . . award, . . . we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion.); Eggett v. Wasatch Energy Corp., 2004 UT 28, ¶ 10, 94 P.3d 193 (The court of appeals does not review the trial court's factual findings where the party challenging those findings fails to marshal the evidence. Instead, the court of appeals must assume that the record supports the findings of the trial court. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). ¶ 19 Despite this language, the marshaling requirement is not a limitation on the power of the appellate courts. Rather, it is a tool pursuant to which the appellate courts impose on the parties an obligation to assist them in conducting a whole record review. It is not, itself, a rule of substantive law. Consequently, parties that fail to marshal the evidence do so at the risk that the reviewing court will decline, in its discretion, to review the trial court's factual findings. See Chen v. Stewart, 2004 UT 82, ¶ 82 n. 16, 100 P.3d 1177 (explaining that the marshaling requirement is critical because in its absence the appellate court must go behind the trial court's factual findings, which often requires a colossal commitment of time and resources). ¶ 20 The reviewing court, however, retains discretion to consider independently the whole record and determine if the decision below has adequate factual support. While parties have a duty to marshal the evidence when challenging the factual basis for a lower body's decision, we refrain, consistent with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, from dictating the remedy the court of appeals must impose when parties fail to meet this requirement. Utah R.App. P. 24(b)(k) (Briefs which are not in compliance may be disregarded or stricken, on motion or sua sponte by the court. . . . (emphasis added)). ¶ 21 In short, parties remain obligated by our rules to marshal the evidence when challenging the factual findings of a lower court. We refrain, however, from limiting the appellate courts' discretion by mandating a particular remedy when parties fail to meet this requirement. Having determined that the court of appeals retained the discretion to review Martinez's challenge to the Commission's factual findings, we turn to the standard of review question on which we granted certiorari.