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 2 courts 1913–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Utah State University of Agriculture & Applied Science v. Sutro & Co.green2 sentences2001T8 Finally, Appellant contends that this case falls within the exception to the general rule that "precludes the assertion of estoppel against the government." Utah State Univ. v. Sutro & Co., 646 P.2d 715, 720 (Utah 1982). 2001The exception to this general rule, however, applies only in cases where "the facts may be found with such certainty, and the injustice to be suffered is of sufficient gravity, to invoke the exception." Id. | 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. Cahoon
neutral
2 sentences2013To support this assertion, Sommerville relies on State v. Cahoon (Cahoon I), 2007 UT App 269 , 167 P.3d 533 , rev'd, 2009 UT 9 , 203 P.3d 957 , where the Utah Court of Appeals concluded that double jeopardy precluded the State from refiling charges that had previously been dismissed before trial because the case had been filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations. 2013To support this assertion, Sommerville relies on State v. Cahoon (Cahoon I), 2007 UT App 269 , 167 P.3d 533 , rev'd, 2009 UT 9 , 203 P.3d 957 , where the Utah Court of Appeals concluded that double jeopardy precluded the State from refiling charges that had previously been dismissed before trial because the case had been filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Cahoon
green
2 sentences2013At the time of dismissal, jeopardy had not attached to the DUI offense, whether classified as a misdemeanor or a felony, because it was dismissed during pretrial proceedings, before Sommerville had been put to trial before the finder of fact. 8 See Cahoon, 2009 UT 9, ¶¶ 12-13 , 203 P.3d 957 . *673 126 Sommerville argues, however, that this case falls within an exception to the principle that double jeopardy only attaches when a defendant is tried before the finder of fact. 2013At the time of dismissal, jeopardy had not attached to the DUI offense, whether classified as a misdemeanor or a felony, because it was dismissed during pretrial proceedings, before Sommerville had been put to trial before the finder of fact. 8 See Cahoon, 2009 UT 9, ¶¶ 12-13 , 203 P.3d 957 . *673 126 Sommerville argues, however, that this case falls within an exception to the principle that double jeopardy only attaches when a defendant is tried before the finder of fact. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Aime
green
2 sentences1927Counsel for the state contends that this case falls within the rule laid down by this court in State v. Aime, 62 Utah, 476 , 220 P. 704 , 32 A. L. 1927Counsel for the state contends that this case falls within the rule laid down by this court in State v. Aime, 62 Utah, 476 , 220 P. 704 , 32 A. L. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Fell v. Union Pac. Ry. Co.
green
1 sentence1916Co., supra, interest on the demand sued on, though a tort, was a legal consequence of the alleged loss and demand, and thus the case falls within the rule that where interest is a legal consequence of an obligation or demand without stipulation it may be recovered, though not claimed in pleading. 11 Ency. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Murphy v. Paumie
green
1 sentence1913In principle this case is not distinguishable from the case of Cromeenes v. Railroad Company, 37 Utah, 476 , 109 Pac. 10 , Ann. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.