What Is Not Covered
A reference is only as honest as its list of what it looked for and did not find. These are the searches that came back empty on the verification dates, and what the site says instead. Each stays here until a primary source turns up; when one does, the page changes and its date changes with it. The open questions that are known but unsettled are on the methodology page.
| Looked for | Result, and what the site does instead | Page |
|---|---|---|
| A Utah appellate decision on an insect or foreign object in food served at a restaurant | Searched Utah Supreme Court and Court of Appeals opinions and citation-chased from the Utah bottled-beverage cases (Nov. 3, 2026). None found. The two Utah foreign-object decisions are bottled-beverage cases (1950, 1960). | ↗ |
| A Utah appellate foodborne-illness decision against a restaurant | Searched; none found. The site uses decisions from Tennessee and California, labeled as such. | ↗ |
| A Utah decision applying the prima facie negligence rule to a food-code or health-regulation violation at a restaurant | None found. Whether Utah treats an administrative rule or county regulation the same way as a statute or ordinance was not established. | ↗ |
| A Utah appellate decision on a pest bite or sting at a restaurant | None found. The site states Utah's general business-invitee standard from slip-and-fall cases and the one published appellate pest-bite case (California, 2018). | ↗ |
| A published decision allocating pest control between a restaurant tenant and its landlord | None found in any state. | ↗ |
| A Utah decision holding that commercial tenants have, or lack, an implied warranty of habitability or suitability | None found either way. The site describes the dependent-covenant rule from Richard Barton Enterprises v. Tsern instead. | ↗ |
| A Utah insurance-coverage decision on pest or pesticide claims | None captured. The site describes the California and Florida decisions and says the wording and the state decide. | ↗ |
| A published restaurant decision that turned on pest-control service records | None found. The site describes what sighting logs and inspection evidence did in the cases where they appear. | ↗ |
| Verdict or settlement amounts in restaurant pest cases | Not stated anywhere on this site. The only amounts in the captured opinions are trial awards that were reversed on appeal. | ↗ |
| The official Utah Administrative Code text of R392-100 from the state's own rules site | The state's site returned an error on the verification date; the rule was checked against a secondary reproduction and is flagged as such on the page. | ↗ |
| A Utah statute that says in so many words that the local health department issues the food permit | Not found as a single section; the chain of authority is described from 26B-7-402, 26B-7-405 and 26A-1-114. | ↗ |
| A written UDAF position on restaurant employees applying general-use pesticides on their employer's premises | Not found. The statute and the rule are quoted and the question is stated as open. | ↗ |
| A Salt Lake County page for requesting a routine re-inspection, or a published fee schedule page | Neither found. The regulation's provisions on follow-ups, reinspection after suspension and the conference are quoted instead. | ↗ |
| Which online review platforms display Utah inspection data | No platform's own published documentation for Utah was verified. The county's own statement about third-party copies is quoted. | ↗ |
| Utah County inspection records | Utah County's lookup refused the automated check and publishes no bulk data; nothing is stated about Utah County findings. Summit and Wasatch counties: no online lookup found. | ↗ |
| Bulk or open-data inspection exports from any Wasatch Front health department | None found. The Salt Lake County analysis reads the public lookup record by record. | ↗ |
| Published extension support for a dilute soap solution as a contact knockdown for adult drain flies | None found; the practice is labeled as the author's own on the flies page, not as a sourced recommendation. | ↗ |
| Published support that German cockroaches arrive specifically on cardboard | Sources say deliveries, boxes and appliances; the site says "deliveries and boxes." | ↗ |
| Published support that insecticide sprays trigger budding in the Argentine ant | None found; the effect is stated for the Pharaoh ant only, where it is documented. | ↗ |
| A published rat entry threshold of exactly half an inch | The source says young rats can squeeze under a door with a half-inch gap and that holes over a quarter inch should be sealed for both rats and mice; the site says that. | ↗ |
| Seasonality of cockroach, rodent and ant findings in the inspection record | Monthly counts are below this site's 10-inspection publication floor in most months; no seasonal claim is made for them. | ↗ |
| Any statistic about what share of foodborne illness is caused by cockroaches, or that cockroaches spread antibiotic-resistant bacteria | Not in the published papers; not stated. | ↗ |
What the site will never cover
- Any individual restaurant's inspection history, score, rank or violations. The analysis on this site is aggregate only and is built so that no establishment can be identified from it.
- Any matter in which the author has been retained as an expert.
- A grade, ranking or recommendation of any pest control company.
- A promise about how an inspection will go.