How cited: State v. Petersen · Go Syfert

State v. Petersen (1991)

green · 54 citation events across 3 courts. Showing the 26 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199120082026
green State v. Coleman (2001)
Rule Authority · Utah Ct. App. · 7 citations in this opinion
ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 The State first challenges the trial court's ruling that the Speedy Trial Statute 2 bars prosecution of Defendant, contending that the trial court "miscalculated the elapsed time." "[ Wle have interpreted both Utah Code Ann. § 77-29-1 and its predeces *794 sor as granting discretion to the trial court." State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 424-25 (Utah 1991) (footnote omitted) (applying "the same standard of review" to all subsections of the Spee…
footnote omitted
green State v. Wagenman (2003)
Rule Authority · Utah Ct. App. · 3 citations in this opinion
See Utah Code Ann. § 77-29-1 (4) (noting that “[i]f the court finds that the failure of the prosecuting attorney to have the matter heard within the time required is not supported by good cause, ... the court shall order the matter dismissed with prejudice”). ¶ 10 “A finding of ‘good cause’ that will excuse failure of the prosecution to bring a defendant to trial within the time required means (1) delay caused by the defendant—• *187 such as asking for a continuance; or (2) …
green Kamoe v. Hon. Ridge (2021)
Rule Authority · Utah · 2 citations in this opinion
See supra ¶ 9; State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 425 (Utah 1991) (―[T]rial courts do not have discretion to misapply the law.‖).
―[T]rial courts do not have discretion to misapply the law.‖
green State v. Phathammavong (1993)
Rule Authority · Utah Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 425 (Utah 1991).
Rule Authority · Utah · 2 citations in this opinion
See Utah R.Civ.P. 52(a); State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 425 (Utah 1991).
Rule Authority · Utah Ct. App.
Civ, P. 45(}); State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 425 (Utah 1991); McKelvey v. Hamilton, 2009 UT App 126, ¶ 17 , 211 P.3d 890 .) The State's brief is unhelpful in determining what standard of review applies, as it suggests that "(alo standard of review applies." After careful consideration of the parties' briefs and relevant law, we conclude that this particular question is one that should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 5 See Miller v. Brocksmith, 825 P.2d 690, 698 (U…
green State v. Goodrich (2016)
Rule Authority · Utah Ct. App.
“Questmns of law are reviewed for correctness." State v. Petersen, 810 P. 2d 421, 424 (Utah 1991). 17 Defendant also contends the district court failed to ensure that he receive timely and adequate notice of, and an opportunity to be heard on, the alleged probation violations.
Rule Authority · Utah Ct. App.
Unicity argues "that courts do not have discretion to misapply the law[, and thus] legal determinations concerning the proper interpretation of [a] statute which grants the [district] court discretion are reviewed for correctness." State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 425 (Utah 1991).
green State v. Barrett (2005)
Rule Authority · Utah
Co. v. Marrs, 2004 UT 89, ¶8 , 100 P.3d 1211 (holding that while a denial of a motion to vacate is typically reviewed for an abuse of discretion, when the motion is based on a claim that the court lacks jurisdiction, the question becomes one of law); State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 425 (Utah 1991) (“[T]rial courts do not have discretion to misapply the law.
“[T]rial courts do not have discretion to misapply the law. Therefore, legal determinations concerning the proper interpretation of the statute which grants the trial court discretion are reviewed for correctness.” (footnote omitted)
green State v. Hankerson (2005)
Rule Authority · Utah
State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 424-25 (Utah 1991).
green State v. Schofield (2002)
Rule Authority · Utah
State v. Burns, 2000 UT 56, ¶ 15 , 4 P.3d 795 ; State v. Larsen, 865 P.2d 1355, 1357 (Utah 1993); State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 424 (Utah 1991).
green Price v. Armour (1997)
Rule Authority · Utah
State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 424 (Utah 1991).
Rule Authority · Utah
State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 424 (Utah 1991).
Rule Authority · Utah
See State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 , 781 n. 3 (Utah 1991); State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 425 (Utah 1991); see also State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256 , 1270 n. 11 (Utah 1993).
green State v. Dickey (1992)
Rule Authority · Utah Ct. App.
State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 424 (Utah 1991).
green State v. Vigil (1992)
Rule Authority · Utah
State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 424 (Utah 1991); City of Monticello v. Christensen, 788 P.2d 513, 516 (Utah), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 120 , 112 L.Ed.2d 89 (1990); Provo City Corp. v. Willden, 768 P.2d 455, 456 (Utah 1989).
green State v. Menzies (1992)
Rule Authority · Utah
Exch., 817 P.2d 789 , 805 n. 19 (Utah 1991); Huston v. Lewis, 818 P.2d 531, 534 (Utah 1991); State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 424 (Utah 1991); State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 , 781-82 n. 3 (Utah 1991). 7 .
Cited · 10th Cir. · signal: see
See State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 427 (Utah 1991).
Cited · 10th Cir. · signal: see
See State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 427 (Utah 1991).
Cited · Utah · signal: see · 4 citations in this opinion
See State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 426 (Utah 1991); State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 , at 781 n. 3 (Utah 1991). .
green State v. Heaton (1998)
Cited · Utah · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 425 (Utah 1991).
green State v. Pedockie (2004)
Cited (see also) · Utah Ct. App. · signal: see also
Under this standard, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found good cause to delay the trial. ¶ 26 “A finding of ‘good cause’ that will excuse failure of the prosecution to bring a defendant to trial within the time required means (1) delay caused by the defendant— such as asking for a continuance; or (2) a relatively short delay caused by unforseen problems arising immediately prior to trial.” State v. Houston, 2003 UT App 416,¶ 11 , 82 P.3…
green State v. Lindsay (2000)
Cited · Utah Ct. App. · signal: see
See State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 424 (Utah 1991).
green State v. Widdison (2000)
Cited · Utah Ct. App. · signal: see
See State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 424 (Utah 1991). €50 Defendant does not offer any argument regarding why the above exception does not apply in this case.
Cited · Utah · signal: see
See State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 425 (Utah 1991); Provo City Corp. v. Willden, 768 P.2d 455, 456 (Utah 1989). 13 .
green Huston v. Lewis (1991)
Cited · Utah · signal: see
See State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 424 (Utah 1991); State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 , 781 n. 3 (Utah 1991). 7 .