Fire Insurance Exchange v. Oltmanns

... Drаke, provide "citations to ing appellant at 181. to 939 P.2d nesses' recollectio on"). relied parts of the record ns." addition, the ALJ and the Board requires law claimants 114 The Daybell forthright that was not found report false in who unemployment benefits earn her work-related activities or about information, provide she did ings, omit material that the information formation or misleading, Department to which the was benefits to consequently receive who Department advised her that she entitled, repay to the benefits they are not obligation Day- reporting had no based on See Utah they inappropriately received. Daybell misrepresentations. has not bell's 35A-4-405(5)(c) (Supp.2009). § Code Ann. findings are persuaded us that the ALJ's pay a such claimants to requires also The law on evidence insufficient to convince based the claim the benefits penalty equal to civil v. Board a reasonable mind. See Johnson [the reason of claim "by direct ant received Comm'n, P.2d Review Indus. To § fraud." Id. ant's] (Utah Ct.App.1992). We see disqualifica purposеs establish fraud fact nothing unreasonable about a finder of penalty, fraud of a civil tion and assessment disbelieving who maintains- a claimant three ele Department must establish corroborating evidence-that without knowledge, and willful materiality, ments: col Department advised her that she could R994-406-401(1). Admin. Code ness. Utah unemployment working benefits while lect However, of an admission or absence "[the sequestering thousands of dollars in to defraud does not proof direct of intent wholly-owned corporation in a commissions finding of fraud." Id. R994-~406- prevent a paid later.3 to be out Review, 401(8); v. Board see also Mineer sum, Daybell € 17 In has not shown us that (Utah 1977) (holdingthat unsupported Board's decision is suffi- by the intention to defraud is shown "the Accordingly, to cient evidence. we decline which contain false state claims themselves it. disturb filing such claims "evidences ments" and that willingness present a false purpose T18 CONCUR: WILLIAM A. WE to obtain lawful benefits" and claim order THORNE JR. and MICHELE M. of intent to de "manifestation[] thus is a CHRISTIANSEN, Judges. fraud"). "(truth- { Daybell contends that she was representations, and accuratе in her both full argues

written and verbal." She that on orally she disclosed to the App "several occasions" 2012UT 230 Department had received commis- that she EXCHANGE, FIRE a re INSURANCE Key that she had sion checks from West "but exchange, ciprocal inter-insurance any money personally taken out of the not Appellee, Plaintiff accepted corporation," Department and "the being Ac- report her verbal sufficient." Brady Allen Robert OLTMANNS cording Daybell, Department represen- Blackner, Defendants responsе her tative told her in disclosure Appellants. reporting obligation that she "did not have a No. 20100462-CA. to herself from if she did not disburse funds However, Daybell pro- corporation." Appeals of Utah. Court of vides no citation to the record that shows Aug.16,2012. oc- evidence these communications inadequately thus curred. This contention is 24(a)(9) R.App. (requir-

briefed. See Utah P. challenge Department's challenge assertion Daybell the rules or statutes does not requires Department a civil Department may to assess law thаt set the terms exercising any Daybell penalty discretion. finding without base a of fraud. also does not Mortensen, Simmons,

Alan W. Paul M. Dalton, City, Appel- Donald L. Salt Lake for lants. Nelson, City,

Aaron Alma Salt Lake Appellee. MeHUGH, VOROS, Judges

Before ORME.

OPINION ORME, Judge: Brady T1 Robert Oltmanns and Blackner appeal the decision of the district court granting Exchange's Fire Insurance motion summary judgment. The court deter- mined that the term ski" as used policy unambiguous homeowner's was effectively excluded for claims aris- registered trademark for that "Jet Ski" is a all the use ing from personal water- reverse. particular model of Kawasaki watercraft. We accident. not involvedin the which was craft, compa- granted the insurance The trial court BACKGROUND summary judgment, and this ny's motion insured, Oltmanns, friend and his T2 appeal followed. F-12 operating a Honda were Blackner lake in watercraft on a AquaTrax personal REVIEW AND STANDARD OF ISSUE personal water- kind of Utah. This southern that contend T4 Oltmanns Blackner by a seated driver designed for use craft is granting in insur the trial court erred passengers. seated up two additional to summary judg motion for company's ance injuries from sustainеd A lawsuit resulted summary judgment A motion for ment. use, during accident that occurred gen no may only when "there is granted be to Fire tendered the defense and Oltmanns any fact and ... to material uine issue as in- Exchange, whom he was Insurance judgment to a moving party is entitled policy. The in- under a homeowner's sured 56(c). R. P. of law." Utah Civ. as a matter following exclu- policy contained surance moving party would bear "Where the coverage: liability from its sion trial, must proof at the movant burden of bodily injury ... [that] not cover We do claim in ordеr each element of his establish judgment to as a to that he is entitled show ownership, mainte- results from Johnson, UT law." v. matter of Orvis nance, use, unloading loading or of: ¶ 10, "'[wlhere 177 P.3d 600. Even a. aircraft no doc party opposed to the motion submits moving may opposition, party uments motor vehicles b. summary judgment only ... granted be if jet or jet sleds c. skis judgment to as a matter he is entitled rent- watercraft owned or d. other Graydon, App 2011 UT Ward v. law'" and which: ed to an insured ¶ 15, (emphasis and omissions (1) in- ‍‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‍horsepower has more than Clark, original) (quoting Olwell v. power; motor or inboard-outdrive board (Utah denied, 1982)), P.2d cert. (Utah 2012). ruling P.3d 1019 A trial court's (2) powered by one or more outboard is question summary judgment presents a than 25 total horse- motors with more Massey Griffiths, 2007 UT of law. See v. power; or 10, ¶ 8, "legal 152 P.3d 312. The court's (3) sailing feet or more is a vessel 26 grant or denial of and ultimate conclusions length. summary judgment are for correct reviewed Also, of an in "interpretation Id. apply jet while ness." 7e and d do not Exclusions presents question of law" skis, surance contract jet watercraft are stored.... sleds or legal the trial court's conclu and we "accord exclusion, the insurance Relying 1 3 on this regarding the contract no deference sions declaratory company brought judgment ac- correctness." Bear review them for Blackner, arguing against tion Oltmanns Williams, 2006 UT Ins. Co. v. River Mut. indemnify duty that it had no to defend or (citations 500, ¶ 7, 153 P.3d 798 App compensate Blackner because Oltmanns omitted). quotation marks internal liability coverage the above was excluded company then provision. The insurance ANALYSIS summary judgmеnt, arguing that moved for argues ski," company "jet which is T5 The insurance operating a Oltmanns was watercraft, was intend that use of the term ski" merely synonym personal any and all water unambiguously to refer to policy excluded ed is common It contends that ski" watercraft. Olt- craft. for use of all such ambigu and thus is not vernacular for such argued the exclusion did not manns attempt what we to understand ambiguous, pointing out ous. Before apply because it was contract, purposes parties ambigui- the intention of the "jet ski" means for of this however, helpful to review the rules against ties should be construed the draft- er.") (footnote omitted). interpretation, particular- governing contract ly in contract context. the insurance matter, practical though, 18 As a policies general 16 "Insurance protocol there is a different in the case of ly interpreted according to rules of contract contracts, surety insurance and where it is interpretation." Bureau Ins. Co. Utah Farm appropriate jump immediately seen as Crоok, 47, ¶ 5, 1999 UT 980 P.2d 685. resort," usually what viewed as the "last policy Because "an insurance classic namely interpretation, "tie-breaker" rule of contract," example of an adhesion Utah against construction the drafter. See id. at " long poli courts have held insurance probable n. 585 & 2. This is due to the liberally cies should be construed in favor of dearth of relevant extrinsic evidence in these the insured and their beneficiaries so as to (noting contexts. See id. that while the usu purposes of in promote and not defeat the al rule is that extrinsic evidence must be Fidelity & surance.'" United States Guar. turning considered before to the rule of con (Utah Sandt, 519, Co. v. 854 P.2d 521-22 ambiguities struction that calls for to be con 1993) (quoting Standard Acc. Richards v. drafter, against the "argua strued there are Co., Ins. 58 Utah 200 P. exceptions" ble in the case of insurance and (1921)). ambiguous "It follows that or uncer surety "may explained, contracts be at language in an contract that tain insurance is part, by least in the fact that such contracts fairly susceptible interpretаtions to different ordinarily preceded by are not discussion or coverage" be construed in favor of should thus, and, negotiation specific terms ab "provisions limit or exelude cover meaningful sent extrinsic evidence as to in age strictly against should be construed the tent, directly recourse must be had to the strictly insurer." Id. at 522-28. constru ambiguities maxim that should be construed exclusions, give only ing we them effect when drafter"). above, against the As noted con they "language clearly use unmis against especially struction the insurer is takably spe communicates to the insured the appropriate ambiguous ap when an term expected cific cireumstances under which the pears exclusionary provision in an because Crook, coverage provided." will not be provisions "strictly such construed (citations ¶ 5, UT P.2d and inter Sandt, against the insurer." 854 P.2d at 528. omitted). quotation nal marks hand, may T 9 In the case be true that ambiguity When faced with meant, through the insurer its use of the contract, interpret written courts do not the ski," term to exclude from all provision thеy comport to with what think is personal varieties of watercraft. And we are likely most sensible or is most what one of confident that the insurer did not intend to parties "really" meant or is what leads to only particular result, refer to a Kawasaki model of Rather, they recognize the fairest watercraft, personal though even there is the need to consider extrinsic evidence such a provi model named Jet Ski. But the ambiguity. effort to resolve the See Wilburn question clarity sion in Electric, is not model of v. Interstate 584-85 (Utah interpretation at least one is additional en Ct.App.1988). If the extrinsic evi tirely possible. Another common use of the conclusive, dence is not then the last resort stand-up ski" is in reference to the interpretation in contract is to construe the watercraft, personal provision against contradis the drafter. See id. at 585 variant ("Onee variety, tinction to the sit-down known collo ambiguous, a contract is deemed quially-and imprecisely-as next order of business is to admit extrinsic also ‍‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‍wave run subject interprеtation evidence to aid in of the con ners. The is well-illuminated in that wisdom, only great repository tract. contemporary It is after extrinsic evidence is Wikipedia: considered and the court uncertain is still past, might tion-perhaps In the we have hesitated to cite not well deserved-for unreliabili See, Test, judicial given reputa ty. eg., in a Survives Research intended: Did it mean what the insurer personal of a said brand name is the Jet Ski by personal watercraft? Or did it Kawasaki all manner of manufactured watercraft is sоmetimes only stand-up variety?2 pro The name The Heavy Industries. mean unfamiliar with mistakenly vision, then, those ambiguous used as a matter of law.3 industry to refer watercraft personal watercraft; howev- any type personal CONCLUSION er, regis- valid trademark name is a "clearly provision T11 This fails Patent and States with the United tered unmistakably to the insured communicate[ ] Office, many other Trademark (or under which the specific cireumstances JetSki, "Jet Ski" The term countries. "Ski") provided." expected coverage will not be is often mis- оften shortened Crook, 1999 Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. piv- Utah all watercraft applied to (citation ¶ 5, by a stand- 980 P.2d 685 inter- handlepoles manipulated UT oting omitted). rider; properly known as Because the ing quotation these are nal marks is often mistak- The term Stand-up PWCs. exclusionary provision ambiguous, it must WaveRunners, drafter, referring to enly when and thus against used construed be actually the name of but WaveRunner com- language relied on insurance PWCs, line sit-down where- the Yamaha of exclude pany is not effective to the Kawasaki line. refers to as "Jet Ski" resulting accident from use of an an insured's of the AquaTrax personal watercraft sit- Ski, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_ski Jet 2012) (footnotes variety. summary judgment The is down omit- August {last visited - trial ted). and the case remanded for reversed may in proceedings as now be such other { then, impre was Basically, the insurer order. policy. in using "jet ski" its in the term cise discounting possibility that the bizarre Even {12 B. I CONCUR: CAROLYN only to one Kawasaki wa it meant to refer McHUGH, model, Presiding Judge. definitively it still cannot be tercraft 15, 2005), (Dec. terribly http://news.bbc.co. fаr-fetched 2. This does not seem like a News BBC least, (finding uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm proposition. Intuitively, rate of it seems that a to be about the same as error in scientific articles which the rider stands motorized watercraft on Encyclopedia Wikipedia Britanni and between ca). dangerous up may than on be much more one using Wikipedia increasing But the trend of which the rider is seated. judicial opinions over the last decade seems to in growing recognition value in a of its demonstrate drafting provi- 3. The insurer's lack of сare in in 2010 article that contexts, some as noted one by pairing is further demonstrated its of the sion by year Wikipedia had been cited found that "jet "jet The author of this sled" with ski." opinions. judicial Lee in four hundred See over argument perhaps oral theorized at Wikipedia Peoples, in Judicial F. The Citation of "jet in reference to the sit-down sled" was used (2009-2010) Opinions, 12 Yale J. L. & Tech. "jet personal while variants of watercraft ski" (reviewing Wikipedia in which several instances stand-up refer to the kind. The idea was used to judiciаl opinions critiquing and has been cited in log- contexts). takers, however, no its had in usefulness, thereof, despite apparent or lack those argued "Wikipedia Judge is single Posner in 2007 that ic, indeed, our research finds not [plartly "jet synony- because it so [is] a terrific resource ... where has been used instance sled" convenient, recently updated any it often has been mously of watercraft sort. accurate," citing very after in United [it] among article, does not even have an Wikipedia (7th Radomski, F.3d Cir. million, States jet appears on sleds. It its several 2007). Cohen, Courts Turn to See Noam Wikipe an unmotorized sled used sled" can refer to 29, 2007 at dia, Times, N.Y. Jan. Selectively, fishing equipment, Shappell, hauling ice see prudent person While a would avoid sur C3. Sleds, Multi-Purpose http:/www.shappell.com/ understanding geon of who bases his or her (last 2012), August 8, or to a sleds.html visited complicated procedures an online medical on readily large would be motorboat of the sort that range expert contributors from source whose subsection, redundantly in the next covered trolls, to internet where an understand scholars (d), in see of the exclusion subsection question, key ing colloquial the vernacular or to the of Boat," http://google. Google Images for "Jet Sled case, Judge Posner is correct that resolution of a (follow "Images" option; then search "Jet com tough explanation Wikipedia A fuller to beat. 8, 2012). Boat") (last August Sled searched citing propriety Wikipedia is set forth Judge separate opinion. Voros's VOROS, Presiding Judge Associate Wikipedia entriеs include a broad disclaimer (concurring): entry's page: on the citation IMPORTANT NOTE: Most educators fully opinion. 13 I concur in the lead I professionals do ap- not consider it separately why I explain write believe that propriate tertiary to use sources such as opinion appropriately Wikipedia cites in con encyclopedias as a sole source for in- struing in the the term ski" insurance formation-citing encyclopedia as an Wikipedia contract at issue here. has been important reference in footnotes or bibli- judicial opin cited hundreds of American ographies may result ions, censure or a fail- including by one the Utah Su issued ing grade. Wikipedia Alverez, articles should be preme Court. See State v. 2006 UT ¶ (citing Wikipedia information, n. 147 background P.3d 425 used for as a ref- Malverde). terminology erence for correct entry today's But lead and search Jesus terms, starting point for further opinion is the first time this court has cited it. research. reference, any community-built As with "free, collaboratively T 14 ais pоssibility there is a Wikipe- for error in edited, multilingual encyclope- Internet content-please your dia's check facts (over dia" whose 22 million articles million against multiple sources and read our dis- English) are written volunteers. Wik- claimers for more information.

ipedia, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/ (as 18, 2012, Ski, Wikipedia, wiki/Wikipedia Aug. Page: http://en. Cite Jet 18:48 GMT). Most of its articles can be edited wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special: (as anyone Cite&page=Jet_Ski&kid=493156065 with access to the site. 13,2012, GMT)1 largest popular claims to be "the аnd most 18:52 Internet," general reference work the Citing Wikipedia 1 16 is as controversial as with "an estimated 865 million readers world- it, approve is common.2 Some courts oth monthly pageviews wide" and "2.7 billion Compare ers condemn it. United States v. (foot- from the United States alone." Id. Lawson, (4th 629, Cir.2012) 677 F.3d 650 omitted). it edges "some limited instances where occasionally Wikipedia been reliance on has Wikipedia ap- a citation to appropriate for held to be erroneous: pear judicial opinion." in a Id. at 80. Some obvious, Wikipedia such as where the have reversed or found [AJppellate courts relying entry at issue or where the court decisions itself is [for] error lower court entry by a Wikipedia cited Wikipedia psychological for re- must address entries addition, case, evolving attempt- party. See id. In custody in a child for search Wikipedia good it a source testimony with nature of "makes ing expert refute medical terms, popu- egre- slang new Wikipedia entry, perhaps and most for definitions ‍‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‍of strengths-is history Amоng shortcomings-and The revision also allows the each editor. 3. its Anyone Wikipedia's fluidity. Wikipe- previous can edit in each of its reader to view an article time, making entry vulnerable to dia at method, we can see that iterations. By " Cohen, editing.'" 'opportunistic See Noam possible meanings three of the ski" NY. Turn Courts Selectively, part Wikipedia, in the lead were of the discussed Times, 29, 2007, http://www. at Jan. available present dispute Wikipedia article before 9wikipedia. nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/2 Ski, Wikipedia, http:/еn. arose. See Jef Thus, Sunstein). (quoting html Professor Cass wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_Ski& (or client) unscrupulous lawyer could edit "'an 3, 2005, (as June 06:32 oldid=14710157 of light entry in a the Web site to frame facts GMT). ""Peoples, 12 Yale favorable to the client's cause.' notes, "[a] data- Further, as Professor Peoples Richards, (quoting J.L. & Tech. at 24 R. Jason allows a researcher base called WikiScanner 2008, Trial, 63). Courting Wikipedia, Apr. Wikipedia dig deeper into the of a arti- revision detectable, editing Opportunistic however. WikiScanner, http:// (citing 25 cle." Id. at Every Wikipedia a "View article on has history" (last by Peoples wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ visited edits, previous the dates of tab with links to all 16, 2009). Dec. edit, IP address of each and the user name or references, jargon Finally, 1 22 culture and for and we need not nail down the one lar computer technology lingo including meaning and true of ski" in this case. What "tweaking," (citing meaning Id. at 381 terms." ever the drafters of the insurance "sereenshot"). intended, "phreakers," may policy have our task is to they employed "language determine whеther here, Peoples also 1 20 Relevant Professor clearly unmistakably communi "Wikipedia entries can be useful states specific cates ... cireumstances under getting ... in some limited situations expected coverage which the pro will not be usage." sense of a term's common Id. at 50. vided," Co., v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Alf particular, recognizes utility In of he 1272, (Utah 1993), whether, Wikipedia interpretation ap- terms contrary, range possible on the there is "a pearing in insurance contracts: meanings" may the term bear in this process The collaborative used to create context, E.Z., 38, ¶ 103, see In re 2011 UT potentially entries makes them (Lee, J., concurring part P.3d 702 specific useful to courts situations. concurring judgment). in the Whatever attempting to several cases courts inter- contexts, task, shortcomings in other for this pret insurance contracts have turned to open-source encyclopedia many edi Wikipedia entries for evidence of the com- just tors and millions of readers seems usage ordinary plain meaning mоn ticket. of a contract term. This method of inter- [ie., pretation looking usage] to common long recognized, and

"has been has been

applied types in the context of various

insurance." has been used in

this context to define the terms "recre-

ational vehicle" and "car accident." (footnotes omitted) (quoting Id. at 82 App 2012UT 227 (2005), § Couch on Insurance 22:88 and cit Utah, Appellee, STATE Plaintiff ing Phelps Dodge Corp. Life, v. Laasmar Accidental & & Death Dismemberment De Plan, pendent Ins. No. 06-cv-00013- Life MOORE, Richard L. Defendant MSK-MJW, at *4 n. WL Appellant. (D.Colo. 1, 2007); Fergison June v. Stone No. 20100477-CA. Co., bridge Ins. No. 2007 WL Life 2007) Feb.1, (Mich.Ct.App. (per at *3 Appeals Court of of Utah. curiam)). Colony See also Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Rest., Hing F.Supp.2d Wah Chinese (E.D.Pa.2008)(citing Wikipedia n. 9 meaning

discussion of the of the term "res- policy).

taurant" in an insurance course, getting

21 Of of the com- sense usage ordinary plain meaning

mon precisely purpose

a contract term is Wikipedia.

which the lead here cites therefore,

Our reliance on this source is Moreover,

my judgment, appropriate. here appel- does not stand alone. As note, dictionary

lants the Macmillan online very

defines "Jet Skit" as "a small ‍‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‍fast boat people you standing

for one drive or two Dictionary,

up." http://www. Macmillan

macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/ 2012). (last visited

american/Jet-Ski notes (stating that the court is "troubled Wik Wikipedia open-source ipedia's reliability"), Bing 115 Because is an lack of Shun Li v. Holder, (5th project, questions reliability. 854, Fed.Appx. arise as to its 400 857-58 Cir. Indeed, 2010) Wikipedia's (expressing "disapproval own article on the sub- of the [immi ject gration judge]'s references various studies as well as Wikipedia reliance on librarians, academics, opposing [warning] against any improper views from reliance on it medicine, experts similarly in science and and editors or unreliable in internet sources the future"), encyclopedias. 909, Wikipedia, Mukasey, of other See Reli- Badasa v. 540 F.3d (8th Cir.2008) ability Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/ (noting Wikipedia's 910-11 ac of (as 18, wiki/Reliability_ofWikipedia of that, knowledgment moment," any given "at 2012, GMT). addition, entry 18:51 In most or all an large "could be in the middle of a Reliability may Wikipe- pаge" 1. showing also be an issue for the has a "Cite this link citations to dia citation itself: entry styles, including style in various the defining Wikipedia prescribed by A feature of is that its en- the Harvard Journal of Law & change. tries are in a constant state of The Technology. journal's style, That citation impermanent nature of the information on opinion, specific I have followed in this is more Wikipedia consequences has serious when ordinary style. than Bluebook citation Wikipedia judicial opinions. entries are cited in they prоvided are with a date-and time- Unless footnotes, "Many by judges, citations often in citation, specific pull up who a researchers judicial point, are ... beside the main [and] Wikipedia entry judicial opinion cited in will appear hip contempo- intended to show how absolutely they viewing never be certain Cohen, rary judge is. ..." Noam Courts Turn entry judge when the as it existed viewed Times, 29, Selectively, Wikipedia, N.Y. Jan. may ultimately uncertainty it.... This lead to 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/ available at instability in law. 01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html. The lead Peoples, Wikipedia Lee F. The Citation in Judi- of opinion's Wikipedia obviously citation to not of 1, cial 12 Yale J.L. & 38-39 Tech. Opinions, type. this (2009-2010). Fortunately, Wikipedia entry each 808 asylum re- giously denying for seeker's recently vandal been have edit or it could from obtained quest based on information (citation marks quotation and internal ized" Lamoure, Wikipedia,. omitted)), Marriage In re 1, 807, Cal.Rptr.3d 15 132 Cal.App.4th 198 omitted) Badasa, (footnotes (citing Id. at 45 (2011) ("We Wikipedia a consider do not 909; Campbell Secretary v. 540 F.3d defining the source" sufficiently 775, reliable Servs., Fed.Cl. 781 & Human 69 Health Clarke, "noncustodial."), v. Prude (2006); & Department v. Children D.M. Cir.2012) (7th (citing Wik 734 (Fla. 675 F.3d Servs., Family So.2d Eighth context of an entry, ipedia in reh'g granted banc Dist.Ct.App.2008), en 2008)). (May proposition challenge, Amendment all"), fun at "is no United that an anal fissure {18 Peoples extracts from Professor (1st Brown, 18 & n. 12 F.3d States v. bright when a line rules for case law "several Cir.2012) Wikipedia for its (citing in Wikipedia entry should not be cited definition movement," one of a "sovereign citizen example, For he judicial opinion." Id. at 28. beliefs"), "atypical legal dеfendant's criminal judi not take suggests that should "[clourts Astrue, Fed.Appx. Murdock content," Wikipedia because cial notice of (10th Cir.2012) (citing Wikipedia for n. 3 accuracy disputable and its that content "is lengths from cities examples of block "some reasonably questioned." Id. He also can be 2012-NMCA-043, Ballard, country"), State v. cited "Wikipedia ‍‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‍should not be states (N.M.Ct. 1,n. 276 P.3d 976 ¶ authoritative source exists for when more "peer- (citing Wikipedia to define App.2012) particular, at 29. the information." Id. sharing"). to-peer file Wikipedia poor sоurce "to define techni And he cal scientific terms." Id. at 46. review article Profes- T 17 A recent law entry Wikipedia should not "[a] cautions depth Peoples Lee F. examines sor only upon basis for a court's be relied surrounding Wikipedia citation of issues ency holding, reasoning, logic," given the Peoples, F. The judicial opinions. See Lee clopedia's shortcomings" "numerous dis Opinions, Judicial Citation of at 293 cussed in his article. Id. (2009-2010). While 12 Yale J.L. & Tech. among judi- acceptance gaining {19 However, Peoples acknowl- Professor writers, Peoples notes that cial Professor

Case Details

Case Name: Fire Insurance Exchange v. Oltmanns

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Utah

Date Published: Aug 16, 2012

Citation: 285 P.3d 802

Docket Number: 20100462-CA

Court Abbreviation: Utah Ct. App.