Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Utah opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. MacEgreen2 sentences2015Thus, in applying the above-quoted standard of proportionality, the Herrera court cited precedent applying the federal standard and concluded that the federal standard ―appl[ied] with equal force to our consideration of Herrera‘s claims under the cruel and unusual punishment[s] clause of the Utah Constitution.‖ 1999 UT 64, ¶ 38 . ¶ 143 In support of the standard it employed, the Herrera court cited State v. Mace, 921 P.2d 1372 , 1377–78 (Utah 1996). 1999 UT 64, ¶ 38 . 2015Thus, in applying the above-quoted standard of proportionality, the Herrera court cited precedent applying the federal standard and concluded that the federal standard "appli[ied] with equal force to our consideration of Herrera's claims under the eruel and unusual punishment[s] clause of the Utah Constitution." 1999 UT 64, ¶ 38 , 993 P.2d 854 . 143 In support of the standard it employed, the Herrera court cited State v. Mace, 921 P.2d 1372, 1377-78 (Utah 1996). 1999 UT 64, ¶ 38 , 993 P.2d 854 . | 1 | 2 |
Jones & Trevor Marketing, Inc. v. Lowrygreen2 sentences2018See, e.g. , Jones v. Trevor Mktg., Inc. v. Lowry , 2012 UT 39 , ¶ 30, 284 P.3d 630 (citing Orvis as establishing the above-quoted standard). 2018See, e.g. , Jones v. Trevor Mktg., Inc. v. Lowry , 2012 UT 39 , ¶ 30, 284 P.3d 630 (citing Orvis as establishing the above-quoted standard). | 1 | 1 |
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of San Antonio v. Northside State Bankgreen1 sentence1983See First Feder *779 a l Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Northside State Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 436 S.W.2d 393 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Herrera
green
2 sentences2015Thus, in applying the above-quoted standard of proportionality, the Herrera court cited precedent applying the federal standard and concluded that the federal standard "appli[ied] with equal force to our consideration of Herrera's claims under the eruel and unusual punishment[s] clause of the Utah Constitution." 1999 UT 64, ¶ 38 , 993 P.2d 854 . 143 In support of the standard it employed, the Herrera court cited State v. Mace, 921 P.2d 1372, 1377-78 (Utah 1996). 1999 UT 64, ¶ 38 , 993 P.2d 854 . 2015Thus, in applying the above-quoted standard of proportionality, the Herrera court cited precedent applying the federal standard and concluded that the federal standard "appli[ied] with equal force to our consideration of Herrera's claims under the eruel and unusual punishment[s] clause of the Utah Constitution." 1999 UT 64, ¶ 38 , 993 P.2d 854 . 143 In support of the standard it employed, the Herrera court cited State v. Mace, 921 P.2d 1372, 1377-78 (Utah 1996). 1999 UT 64, ¶ 38 , 993 P.2d 854 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Ostrander v. Linn
green
2 sentences1983The appellants rely on Ostrander v. Linn, 237 Iowa 694 , 22 N.W.2d 223 (1946), as support for an exception to the above-quoted rule. 1983The appellants rely on Ostrander v. Linn, 237 Iowa 694 , 22 N.W.2d 223 (1946), as support for an exception to the above-quoted rule. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.