Jensen v. Eames
In Jensen v. Eames, 30 Utah 2d 423, 519 P.2d 236, 238 (1974), the plaintiff argued that the amended rule should be applied, while the defendant contended that the pre-amendment version should be applied. See id.
After citing rule 1(b), the Court explained:
"This type of problem involves a common sense and equitable accommodation of the amended rules to pending actions. If rights will be impaired, the amended procedure should not be applied, but where there will be no impairment the remedial provisions of the amended rules should be applied." Id.