Carolyn B. McHugh

Quick Facts

Full Name	Carolyn B. McHugh
Occupation	Lawyer
Date Of Birth	Jul 12, 1957(1957-07-12)
Age	67
Birthplace	Abington
Country	United States
Birth City	Pennsylvania
Horoscope	Cancer

Carolyn B. McHugh Biography

Carolyn B. McHugh is one of the most popular and richest Lawyer who was born on July 12, 1957 in Abington, Pennsylvania, United States.

Carolyn Baldwin McHugh (born July 12, 1957) is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. and former presiding judge of the Utah Court of Appeals.

In 1975, McHugh graduated from Judge Memorial Catholic High School in Salt Lake City, where she participated in sports, student government, drill team, yearbook, and other activities. McHugh was selected as the Judge Memorial Sterling Scholar of English and Literature.

Carolyn B. McHugh Net Worth

Carolyn B. McHugh is one of the richest Lawyer from United States. According to our analysis, Wikipedia, Forbes & Business Insider, Carolyn B. McHugh 's net worth $5 Million. (Last Update: December 11, 2023)

McHugh was born in 1957, in Abington Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania while her parents were visiting her paternal grandparents. The family, which grew to include eight children, was actually living in Baltimore, Maryland at the time.

Height, Weight & Body Measurements

Carolyn B. McHugh height Not available right now. Casper weight Not Known & body measurements will update soon.

Who is Carolyn B. McHugh Dating?

According to our records, Carolyn B. McHugh is possibily single & has not been previously engaged. As of December 1, 2023, Carolyn B. McHugh’s is not dating anyone.

Relationships Record : We have no records of past relationships for Carolyn B. McHugh. You may help us to build the dating records for Carolyn B. McHugh!

Forsberg v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 2008 UT App 146, 184 P. 3d 610, cert. denied, 199 P.3d 367. After an electrical subcontractor on a hospital construction project filed for bankruptcy, the trustees of certain employment benefit funds (the Funds) sued the general contractor, its surety, and the owner for unpaid fringe benefit contributions to the Funds and to foreclose on its mechanics’ lien. The District Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Funds did not have standing, that fringe benefits were not recoverable either under the mechanics’ lien statute or the private payment bond statute, and that claims under either statute were preempted by ERISA. The Funds appealed. Each of the issues raised on appeal was an issue of first impression in Utah. With respect to standing, the Utah Court of Appeals concluded that the Funds were within the zone of interest contemplated by the Utah Legislature because they were entitled to enforce the rights of the employees. Next, the Court of Appeals held that Utah’s mechanics’ lien and private bond statutes were not preempted by ERISA. Finally, the appellate court determined that the fringe benefits were part of the value of labor or services provided on the project and therefore, could be recovered under the statutes. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the District Court.

Facts & Trivia

Casper Ranked on the list of most popular Lawyer. Also ranked in the elit list of famous people born in United States. Carolyn B. McHugh celebrates birthday on July 12 of every year.

State v. Marks, 2011 UT App 262, 262 P.3d 13. Marks was convicted of one count of sodomy on a child in connection with his conduct with his mentally challenged grandson and appealed his conviction. Marks argued that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by excluding evidence of 1) grandson’s possession of pornography, and 2) grandson’s simulation of sexual intercourse with his younger sister. According to Marks, the evidence was relevant to grandson’s sexual knowledge and his ability to fabricate the allegations. Marks also claimed that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict because grandson’s testimony was inherently inconsistent. The Utah Court of Appeals recognized the tension between rule 412 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, Utah’s rape shield rule, that bars evidence of the alleged victim’s other sexual behavior, and the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution, that protects the accused’s right to present a complete defense. The Court of Appeals concluded that a complete defense in a criminal case, includes the right to conduct reasonable cross-examination that is not limited arbitrarily or disproportionately to the purpose of any evidentiary rule limiting such cross- examination. Considering the purposes of rule 412 and the facts and circumstances at issue, the Court of Appeals concluded that the exclusion of the evidence was not arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes of Utah’s rape shield rule. The Court of Appeals also held that the victim’s testimony was not so inconsistent as to be inherently improbable. Thus, the court affirmed Mark’s conviction.