Guide

Utah Table of Authorities: Principal and Reply Briefs

Updated
Updated
Reading time
5 min read
On this page3 sections
  1. Principal and reply tables have the same content rule
  2. Universal citations and page references serve different jobs
  3. PDF review and editable Word output

Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) calls for a table of authorities in principal briefs, and 24(b)(2) expressly includes one in a reply brief. The reproduced rule lists cases alphabetically, rules, statutes and other cited authorities, with the pages on which they are cited. Principal and reply tables should index their own documents, not share the opening brief’s pagination.

Build a reviewed Utah table of authorities from your PDF. Utah uses standard format, not a Utah-specific preset. Important source limit: the complete rule text was read from Court Rules Network on October 14, 2026; the official rule portal and court checklists were inaccessible. Current official wording remains unverified.

Principal and reply tables have the same content rule

“The table of authorities must list all cases alphabetically arranged, rules, statutes, and other authorities cited, with references to the pages on which they are cited.” — Rule 24(a)(3), secondary reproduction; current official text not verified

courtrules.net (Court Rules Network: Utah Rule 24 (secondary rule reproduction))

The reproduced paragraph (b) permits the appellant or petitioner to reply only to the facts and arguments raised in the opposing principal brief. It then names required components: contents, authorities, argument, conclusion and certificate of compliance. Its table clause incorporates paragraph (a)(3). This is more explicit than a rule merely authorizing a reply without describing its front matter.

Review the reply as a separate citation set. An authority used only in the principal brief should not remain in the reply’s table just because a template was copied. Conversely, a newly cited authority answering an opponent’s argument should not be omitted because it was absent from the opening table. The requirement describes navigation within each document, not a combined authorities list for the whole appeal.

Rule 24 review matrix (secondary text)
Document or referenceRelevant provisionWhat to check
Appellant or appellee principal brief24(a)(2)–(3)Contents first; complete authorities table next; verify this brief’s pages.
Appellant or petitioner reply24(b)(1)–(2)Own contents and authorities tables; same authority coverage as (a)(3).
Utah appellate opinion issued since January 1, 199924(f)Include its universal citation; verify the real citation rather than treating a reporter short form as complete.
Factual or procedural record reference24(e)Record citations locate evidence and proceedings; do not confuse them with table references to brief pages.
Cross-appeal or specialized proceedingSeparate governing rules and ordersConfirm the applicable briefing provisions; this ordinary Rule 24 matrix is not a complete checklist for those filings.

Universal citations and page references serve different jobs

Utah’s universal citation identifies a decision independently of reporter pagination. A paragraph pinpoint identifies a passage in that decision. Neither is the page number to place in the table’s brief-page column. Keep the full citation in the authority entry and the locations of its use in a separate column. Check citations in standards of review, introductions and footnotes as well as in the argument.

Resolve a full citation and later short forms to the same decision only after checking the underlying authority. Two opinions involving similar parties are not necessarily duplicates. Alphabetize cases and use clear groups for statutes, rules and other authorities; the category labels are an organizational choice, not a claim that the reproduced rule dictates every heading. The quoted table clause does not decide a passim policy. Concrete page references avoid substituting an unverified convention for the text.

PDF review and editable Word output

  • Prepare the correct PDF. Export the principal or reply brief you are working on with its intended printed numbering. Keep the matching Word document if you want insertion.
  • Choose standard format. Add the PDF to the Table of Authorities generator and confirm the actual court/settings. Court detection and samples can override the initial selection; neither establishes legal compliance.
  • Review each entry and page. Check citations, universal-citation information where applicable, duplicates and missing authorities. Compare every reference with the PDF, including uses in footnotes.
  • Export editable text. PDF-only downloads an editable Word table for insertion. Matching Word plus text-layer PDF can insert ordinary table text into the Word brief. It does not restyle the brief’s citations.
  • Re-export and verify. Insertion and edits can move pages. Check the final PDF and regenerate when references change. Confirm current official rules and any case order separately; the tool does not format the whole brief or add e-filing bookmarks.

The DOCX-only route instead creates TA fields and a TOA field for Word for Windows to build and update. Use the PDF route for ordinary editable table text without relying on those Windows fields.

Frequently asked

Does a Utah reply need its own table?

The complete secondary Rule 24 text read here expressly includes one in (b)(2), incorporating (a)(3). Confirm the current official wording before filing; do not reuse opening-brief pages for reply citations.

Is the table limited to cases?

No in the reproduced rule. It includes rules, statutes and other cited authorities as well as alphabetically arranged cases. A cases-only export needs review for missing categories.

Can reporter pages replace brief pages?

No. Reporter and paragraph references identify the source passage. The table’s location references identify where the authority is cited in this brief.

Is there a Utah-specific generator preset?

No. This guide links to standard format. Review the actual court, heading, grouping and page references rather than describing the output as a Utah preset or a filing guarantee.

Has the current official rule been verified?

No. Official rule requests timed out and official PDF requests returned 406. The complete secondary reproduction was read October 14, 2026; confirm the current rule through Utah Courts before relying on it.

Sources, dates and access exceptions

  1. Utah Courts: official URAP Rule 24 portalAttempted October 14, 2026; requests timed out. Official rule text not read and currentness not verified.legacy.utcourts.gov
  2. Utah Courts: Checklist for Briefs (Attorneys)Attempted October 14, 2026; HTTP 406. Contents and checklist edition were not independently verified.utcourts.gov
  3. Utah Courts: Reply Brief Checklist (Non-Attorneys)Attempted October 14, 2026; HTTP 406. Not used as proof of wording.utcourts.gov
  4. Court Rules Network: Utah Rule 24Complete secondary rule reproduction read October 14, 2026, including (a), (b), (e) and (f). Text identifies effective November 1, 2017; publication metadata is not evidence of a later rule amendment. Confirm against the current official rule.courtrules.net

BriefAuthority · free

No account · no upload

Create a standard-format table