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 1998–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mast v. Oversongreen1 sentence2020See Mast, 971 P.2d at 932 . ¶22 Furthermore, we agree with the district court that Acumen “never accused any individual of committing a crime” because, with our emphasis, “at most, [Acumen] asserted that the SCC’s action of adopting the contested Bylaw would be a Class B misdemeanor violation of a law prohibiting interference with the electoral process.” The emails stated that “a small group of delegates to the [SCC],” 13 whom Acumen referred to later in the emails as the Gang of 51, “voted to enact a bylaw” that “violates the rules for a ‘Qualified Political Party’ . . . under Utah state law. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersongreen1 sentence1999BACKGROUND ¶ 2 “In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, we recite the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court’s findings.” State v. Anderson, 910 P.2d 1229, 1230 (Utah 1996). | 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. Murray
green
1 sentence2023UOVC’s attorney asked the court to order restitution 20200890-CA 5 2023 UT App 52 State v. Murray for lost wages because C.M. had to take leave from work “[a]s a result of [Murray’s] conduct . . . because she wasn’t able to fully perform the job.” UOVC’s attorney asked for restitution for moving expenses because “it was [Murray’s] conduct which caused” C.M. to move and she “had reason to hide her whereabouts from” Murray out of fear. ¶17 Murray, however, argued that under the restitution statute, “restitution has to be tied directly” to the offense for which he’d been convicted—which, here, wa | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Pipkin v. Acumen
green
2 sentences2020ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶12 Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Acumen on their defamation, false light, 20190378-CA 9 2020 UT App 111 Pipkin v. Acumen IIED, and electronic communications harassment claims. 2020In his second email, Acumen referred to the Gang of 51 as “a small group of extremists on the [SCC].” 20190378-CA 16 2020 UT App 111 Pipkin v. Acumen vote in favor thereof. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
American Fork City v. Pena-Flores
green
2 sentences2002His conviction was affirmed by the court of appeals in American Fork City v. Pena-Flores, 2000 UT App 323 , 14 P.3d 698 . 2002His conviction was affirmed by the court of appeals in American Fork City v. Pena-Flores, 2000 UT App 323 , 14 P.3d 698 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1998The trial court dismissed the case after ruling that the State had failed to afford defendant the safeguards required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 1998The trial court dismissed the case after ruling that the State had failed to afford defendant the safeguards required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). | 1 | 1998–1998 |