The tools that win cases. The intelligence that changes outcomes.
Auditor
Every citation verified. Every argument stress-tested.
12citations analyzed in this document
9
Verified Valid
1
Logic Error Found
1
Omitted Authority
1
Fabrication Caught
Park v. Highland Mgmt, 2021 UT App 89 reaches the opposite conclusion. Opposing counsel will cite it. Rule 3.3 risk.
Linked Cases
Cross-case contradiction detection.
2
Cases Linked
47
Docs Indexed
1
Contradiction
Income declared $85K in custody filing. Deposition transcript states $120K. $35K discrepancy flagged for impeachment.
459 discovery rules tracked across all 50 states + federal
Consigliere
Strategy that remembers. Strength that grows.
84
Case Strength
72
84
+12 points over 14 sessions
Settlement Conference
Next · 3 days
Trial Subpoenas (8)
Backup · If talks fail
Peer Review
Three engines verify. One verdict returned.
Consensus
Unanimous
86% average confidence
Advocate
92%
Integrator
88%
Critic
79%
Critic notes: discovery rule requires proving fraud could not reasonably have been discovered earlier.
Login successful. Redirecting...
Sign in to BenchSlap
Built for attorneys who don't lose.
Citation verification & legal analysis for all 57 jurisdictions
AES-256 encryption·262 courts covered·Every court in America
Strategy Demo
Describe a case. Get a verdict.
Case strength scoring, outcome prediction, and the critical vulnerability you almost missed. No account required.
Example: Custody Decree Without Best-Interest Findings
The Children Have Constitutional Rights That Were Ignored
Utah Title 80 declares as official state policy that children have a right to maintain relationships with both parents. The legislature didn’t suggest this — it codified it. When a court separates a child from a parent without findings justifying that separation, it doesn’t just violate a statute. It violates the child’s constitutionally protected interest in the parent-child relationship. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). This decree may not be merely voidable — it may be void as against the declared public policy of the state.
Zero Best-Interest Findings — The Decree Is Legally Empty
Utah Code § 30-3-10(2) lists specific factors the court must consider. This decree addresses none of them. No analysis of each parent’s capacity. No finding on the children’s emotional needs. No mention of the existing bond. Under Hogge v. Hogge, 649 P.2d 51 (Utah 1982), a custody award without adequate findings must be remanded. The court didn’t get it wrong — it didn’t do the analysis at all.
The Children Were Never Heard
Two children, ages 11 and 14. Neither was interviewed. No guardian ad litem appointed. No custody evaluation ordered. The 14-year-old’s preference carries significant weight under § 30-3-10(5) — and it was never sought. Three years of school records, medical appointments, and extracurricular sign-up sheets show who was actually raising these children. The decree ignores all of it.
Void vs. Voidable — This Matters
A voidable order can only be challenged within the appeal window. A void order can be challenged at any time because it was never legally valid. When a court enters a custody order that contravenes the explicit public policy declared by the legislature in Title 80 — the right of children to maintain parental relationships — without any findings justifying the disruption, there is a serious argument that the order is void, not merely voidable. That changes everything about the timeline and the available remedies.
CRITICAL VULNERABILITY
The 30-Day Appeal Clock Is Running
The decree was entered 18 days ago. Under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days. You have 12 days. Alternatively, a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend judgment tolls the appeal deadline — but only if filed within 28 days of the judgment.
If neither a Rule 59 motion nor a notice of appeal is filed within the deadline, this decree becomes final regardless of how deficient it is. The children’s living arrangement will be locked in based on an order the court never properly justified. Act now or lose the right to challenge it.
78Strength
Strong Case
Legal Merit
91
Factual Support
82
Procedure
58
Evidence
72
Best Case
65%
Appellate court remands for proper findings. On remand, mother receives primary custody consistent with the established caregiving pattern. Children are finally heard.
Likely
55%
Rule 59 motion granted. Court reopens the custody determination, orders a custody evaluation, and interviews the children. Status quo maintained pending new findings.
Worst Case
15%
Court denies the motion and the appeal deadline passes. Decree stands. Would need to pursue a Rule 60(b) motion for extraordinary relief — a much higher bar.
Executive Brief
The void argument is the most powerful tool in this case. If the decree violates the declared public policy of the state — Title 80’s recognition of children’s rights to maintain parental relationships, coupled with Troxel’s constitutional framework — then the order isn’t just wrong, it’s legally invalid. Void orders aren’t subject to appeal deadlines because they were never valid to begin with. This transforms a 12-day emergency into a sustained challenge that can be raised at any time.
But don’t rely solely on the void argument. File the Rule 59 motion within 28 days as a parallel track. Belt and suspenders. The Rule 59 motion forces the trial court to confront its own omissions. The void argument preserves your options if the trial court refuses to act. Either path leads to the same place: the court must explain how it decided to move these children away from the parent who raised them without examining a single best-interest factor.
The evidence is already in your hands. Three years of school records showing who picked them up. Medical appointment logs showing who took them to the doctor. Extracurricular schedules showing who drove them to practice. A 14-year-old who was never asked what she wanted. A new living arrangement the court never examined. Line these facts up against the empty decree and the gap between what happened and what should have happened becomes impossible to ignore.
Case strength scoring, outcome prediction, and vulnerability detection. Now try it with your case.
