Opinion ID: 2621356
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the court of appeals inappropriately issued its decision in memorandum form

Text: ¶26 Our review in this case has been made more difficult because it comes to us in the form of an unpublished memorandum decision. Unpublished memorandum decisions have an important, but limited, role in the work of the court of appeals. See, e.g., Grand County v. Rogers, 2002 UT 25, ¶¶ 7-19, 44 P.3d 734. ¶27 Memorandum decisions are intended to address cases which do not present novel issues of law on appeal, with reference to well-established precedent arising either from case law or from unambiguous statutory language. Id. ¶ 7. Frequently, such opinions are not published because they apply the law but do not develop it and therefore are of interest only to those with a stake in the outcome. Id. ¶28 Although the task of taking on appeals that result in correction of error falls primarily to the court of appeals, that court frequently confronts cases featuring novel questions of law. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. In those cases, the court's work should appear in a published opinion. ¶29 There are two primary reasons for this. First, the parties to an appeal are entitled to an understanding of the reasons relied upon by the appellate court. Id. ¶ 14. This is more easily accomplished in cases that are suited to memorandum decisions because [w]hen the appellate court [cites] to clear precedent that is . . . applicable to the situation presented for review, the parties may know of the reasoning without the need of the appellate court reiterating previously well defined law. Id. ¶30 Second, our review is made much more difficult when the reasoning of the court of appeals is abbreviated, or superficial, or incomplete. Id. ¶ 15. Without a clear explanation from the court of appeals, both the parties and this court are left to guess at the precise reasoning employed by the court of appeals. Such a situation hinders greatly the efficacy of certiorari review because it eliminates the ability of counsel and court to analyze and dissect a single, specific, well-defined legal theory. ¶31 Furthermore, because it is important that the basis for a decision is clearly understood, reversal or affirmance of the district court on other grounds should almost never be done through a memorandum decision. In matters where the lower court is reversed, in whole or in part, or affirmed on other grounds, more explanation is usually necessary. Id. ¶ 18. The only exception would be in those rare instances where the reasons for reversal [or affirmance on other grounds] are clearly set forth. in prior case law. Id. ¶32 We also note that in a case such as this that stimulates a dissent, the use of a memorandum decision is likely unwise. The existence of a dissent illustrates that there are concerns with the logic applied that deserve more than a cursory explanation. [6] ¶33 Applying the foregoing observations to this case, we are convinced that the memorandum decision was not the proper decisional format.