5 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Black v. McKnightgreen1 sentence2001Thus, on remand, if the evidence supports the defenses of waiver and estoppel, the trial court should instruct the jury regarding them. 165 At trial below, the trial court rejected defendants' proposed instructions on waiver and estoppel, finding they incorrectly stated the law. 12 Indeed, "the trial court may properly refuse to give [a] requested instruction[ ] where it does not accurately reflect the law governing the factual situation of the case." Black v. McKnight, 562 P.2d 621, 622 (Utah 1977). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Douglasgreen1 sentence2001Yet, this should not overshadow the trial court's obligation to see that the jury is presented with "a party's theory of the case." Goode, 788 P.2d at 640. | 1 | 1 |
McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. v. McCauleygreen1 sentence1985See also McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. v. McCauley, Fla.App., 418 So.2d 1177 (1982), (citing Larson, supra). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
OPC v. Kinikini
green
1 sentence2023Id. ¶33 In support of his argument that the district court should conduct a factual analysis of the circumstances of the crime, Kinikini looks outside of rule 11-564 and draws upon two other rules that he contends must be harmonized with it. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Howick v. Salt Lake City Employee Appeals Board
neutral
2 sentences2013The District Court Made All Required Rulings. ¶10 The City contends that the district court “failed to undertake the legal analysis required by this court.” In Howick II we held that a district court action would permit Howick to test her claim of statutory merit status against the City’s defenses of waiver and estoppel and thus allow the district court to determine whether she was a merit or an at‐will employee. 2009 UT App 334, ¶ 8 , 222 P.3d 763 . 2013The District Court Made All Required Rulings. ¶10 The City contends that the district court “failed to undertake the legal analysis required by this court.” In Howick II we held that a district court action would permit Howick to test her claim of statutory merit status against the City’s defenses of waiver and estoppel and thus allow the district court to determine whether she was a merit or an at‐will employee. 2009 UT App 334, ¶ 8 , 222 P.3d 763 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Van Waters & Rogers v. Workman
green
2 sentences2009In Van Waters & Rogers v. Workman, 700 P.2d 1096 (Utah 1985), the Utah Supreme Court outlined a "workable formula" for "distinguishing wiliful failure from less culpable conduct," stating: "[TJhe general rule {is] that the deliberate defiance of a reasonable rule laid down to prevent serious bodily harm to the employee will usually be held to constitute willful misconduct, in the absence of a showing of ... specific exeuses[.] [[Image here]] If the employee had some plausible purpose to explain his violation of a rule, the defenses of violation of safety rules or willful misconduct are inappli 2009In Van Waters & Rogers v. Workman, 700 P.2d 1096 (Utah 1985), the Utah Supreme Court outlined a "workable formula" for "distinguishing wiliful failure from less culpable conduct," stating: "[TJhe general rule {is] that the deliberate defiance of a reasonable rule laid down to prevent serious bodily harm to the employee will usually be held to constitute willful misconduct, in the absence of a showing of ... specific exeuses[.] [[Image here]] If the employee had some plausible purpose to explain his violation of a rule, the defenses of violation of safety rules or willful misconduct are inappli | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.