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 1993–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doggett v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2025And unlike prejudice requirements in other contexts, it is not a component of a claim that must be proven to secure relief.13 See, e.g., Doggett, 505 U.S. at 655 (stating that “consideration of prejudice is not limited to the specifically demonstrable, and . . . affirmative proof of particularized prejudice is not essential to every speedy trial claim”). ¶80 Thus, we are not prepared to say that defendants must meet a certain threshold showing to have their prejudice claims considered as part of the “difficult and sensitive balancing” required by Barker. 407 U.S. at 533 . | 1 | 1 |
Gardner v. Holdengreen1 sentence2010See id. at 622-23 . | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of J.C.O. v. Andersongreen2 sentences1995See, e.g., J.C.O. v. Anderson, 734 P.2d 458, 463 (Utah 1987) (holding that any requirement to notify parents of deficiencies does not apply to children "physically endangered by abuse or neglect”; nothing said about separate focus on impact on parent-child relationship); State ex rel. 1995See, e.g., J.C.O. v. Anderson, 734 P.2d 458, 463 (Utah 1987) (holding that any requirement to notify parents of deficiencies does not apply to children "physically endangered by abuse or neglect"; nothing said about separate focus on impact on parent-child relationship); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brooksgreen1 sentence1993See State v. Moton, 749 P.2d 639, 642-43 (Utah 1988); State v. Brooks, 631 P.2d 878, 883-84 (Utah 1981). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Motongreen1 sentence1993See State v. Moton, 749 P.2d 639, 642-43 (Utah 1988); State v. Brooks, 631 P.2d 878, 883-84 (Utah 1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barker v. Wingo
green
1 sentence2025And unlike prejudice requirements in other contexts, it is not a component of a claim that must be proven to secure relief.13 See, e.g., Doggett, 505 U.S. at 655 (stating that “consideration of prejudice is not limited to the specifically demonstrable, and . . . affirmative proof of particularized prejudice is not essential to every speedy trial claim”). ¶80 Thus, we are not prepared to say that defendants must meet a certain threshold showing to have their prejudice claims considered as part of the “difficult and sensitive balancing” required by Barker. 407 U.S. at 533 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Rodrigues
green
2 sentences2015State v. Rodrigues, 2009 UT 62, ¶ 13 , 218 P.3d 610 . 2015State v. Rodrigues, 2009 UT 62, ¶ 13 , 218 P.3d 610 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.