green
Positive treatment
9.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. West
See State v. Ferguson, 2011 UT App 77, ¶ 20 , 250 P.3d 89 (acknowledging that while erroneously admitted evidence had “the potential of being highly prejudicial, the other evidence presented at trial was sufficiently strong as to convince us that there was no reasonable likelihood of a different result” (quotation simplified)), cert. denied, 262 P.3d 1187 (Utah 2011); High, 2012 UT App 180 , ¶¶ 50– 51, 54 (noting that while the case was not like Ferguson, “where the evidence of guilt was overwhelming” in the absence of evidence allegedly admitted in error, the court’s “confide…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Bryant
See State v. Watkins, 2011 UT App 96, ¶¶ 9-16 , 250 P.3d 1019 , cert. granted, 262 P.3d 1187 (Utah 2011). ¶ 36 In State v. Watkins, 2011 UT App 96 , 250 P.3d 1019 , this court recognized that the "the meaning of [cohabitation] depends upon the context in which it is used." Id. ¶ 12 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Francis
See In re Gregory, 2011 UT App 170, ¶ 10 , 257 P.3d 495 ("We will not reverse based on an unbriefed argument raised for the first time at oral argument."), cert. denied, 262 P.3d 1187 (Utah 2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Losee
See In re Gregory, 2011 UT App 170, 110 , 257 P.3d 495 ("We will not reverse based on an unbriefed argument raised for the first time at oral argument."), cert. denied, 262 P.3d 1187 (Utah 2011). 10 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. High
See State v. Ferguson, 2011 UT App 77, ¶18 , 250 P.3d 89 , cert. denied, 262 P.3d 1187 (Utah 2011).
examined
Cited "see"
Allen v. Ciokewicz
(3×)
See id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 127 Relying on our decision in Moa v. Edwards, 2011 UT App 140 , 256 P.3d 242 (mem.), cert. denied, 262 P.3d 1187 (Utah 2011), Wife claims that Husband did not challenge the trial court's findings regarding his "willfulness, bad faith, fault or persistent dilatory tactics" (collectively, willfulness) in the trial court.
discussed
Cited "see"
Towner v. Ridgway
See Duchesne Land, LC v. Division of Consumer Protection, 2011 UT App 153, ¶ 8 , 257 P.3d 441 ("Because Appellants have not addressed the actual basis for the district court's ruling, they have failed to persuade us that the district court's ruling constituted error ..."), cert. denied 262 P.3d 1187 (Utah 2011). .He does address mootness in his reply brief.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Nielsen
See generally State v. Ferguson, 2011 UT App 77, ¶ 16 , 250 P.3d 89 ("While [the court need not identify each of the Shickles factors in its analysis, we must be able to discern that it made a sufficient inquiry under rule 403." (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 262 P.3d 1187 *823 (Utah 2011).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DUCHESNE LAND
v.
DIVISION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION.
v.
DIVISION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION.
20110510.
Utah Supreme Court.
Aug 17, 2011.
Published
Petition for certiorari denied.