Gates v. Taylor, 991081.
| Decision Date | 04 February 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 991081.,991081. |
| Citation | 997 P.2d 903,2000 UT 33 |
| Parties | LeRay GATES and Debra Verdille Gates, Petitioners, v. The Honorable James TAYLOR and Dustin Forman, Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Kathleen M. McConkie, Salt Lake City, for petitioners.
Ronald H. Goodman, American Fork, for Forman.
Brent M. Johnson, Salt Lake City, for Judge Taylor.
Heard at Law and Motion before Chief Justice HOWE, Associate Chief Justice DURHAM, and Justice RUSSON.
¶ 1 Petitioners filed a Petition for Extraordinary Writ with this court, seeking prohibition of enforcement of a lower court order in an adoption matter. Petitioners filed an identical petition for relief with the Utah Court of Appeals in November, 1999. The earlier petition alleged the same facts, raised the same issues between the same parties, and relied on the same arguments as are now present before us. The court of appeals reviewed the pleadings, heard oral argument, and denied the petition. Although the court's written order denying the petition is brief, it is clear that the matter was decided on the merits and not on any procedural ground.
¶ 2 That being the case, petitioners are barred by the doctrine of res judicata from seeking the same relief from this court in a successive petition for a writ. Their only option for review of the decision of the court of appeals was to petition this court to review it on a writ of certiorari. See generally Annotation, Judgment Granting or Denying Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition as Res Judicata, 21 A.L.R.3d 206.
¶ 3 It is immaterial that the judgment of denial was issued by a lower court. This court and the Utah Court of Appeals both have original jurisdiction over petitions for extraordinary writ, and "[w]hen a court of competent jurisdiction has adjudicated directly upon a particular matter, the same point is not open to inquiry in a subsequent action for the same cause and between the same parties." Cohn v. Isensee, 45 Cal.App. 509, 188 P. 278 (1920). Sound policy, principles of judicial economy, and fairness to the parties require that final judgments on the merits be subject only to proper appellate review and not to successive relitigation in new courts. Therefore, we dismiss this petition as barred by res judicata.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Horne
...We disagree.[15] [16] ¶ 41 When a court rules on a petition for extraordinary writ, it exercises original jurisdiction. See Gates v. Taylor, 2000 UT 33, ¶ 3, 997 P.2d 903 (per curiam). Although in such matters we are “not in a position to arrive at a legal ruling that is dependent on the re......
-
State v. Lara
...court of appeals exercised its writ power in aid of Mr. Lara it would have done so within the scope of its original jurisdiction. Gates v. Taylor, 2000 UT 33, ¶ 3, 997 P.2d 903. The court of appeals elected to accept Mr. Lara's first option and reinstated his ¶ 9 The State contends that whe......
- Armendariz v. Armendariz
- Bolliger v. Bolliger