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 1991–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keyes v. Keyesgreen1 sentence2025See Keyes, 2015 UT App 114, ¶ 28 . | 1 | 1 |
Reperex, Inc. v. Coldwell Banker Commercialgreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., Sandhu v. Kanzler, 932 F.3d 1107, 1116 (8th Cir. 2019) (stating that legal malpractice claims “premised on straightforward acts or omissions such as an obviously missed deadline or a clear case of stealing client funds” would not need to be supported by expert testimony (quotation simplified)); Boyle v. Welsh, 589 N.W.2d 118, 127 (Neb. 1999) (stating that “failure to file a suit that should otherwise be filed within the time required by the statute of limitations is a deviation from the standard of care falling within the common knowledge exception,” but holding that the exception d 2023See, e.g., Sandhu v. Kanzler, 932 F.3d 1107, 1116 (8th Cir. 2019) (stating that legal malpractice claims “premised on straightforward acts or omissions such as an obviously missed deadline or a clear case of stealing client funds” would not need to be supported by expert testimony (quotation simplified)); Boyle v. Welsh, 589 N.W.2d 118, 127 (Neb. 1999) (stating that “failure to file a suit that should otherwise be filed within the time required by the statute of limitations is a deviation from the standard of care falling within the common knowledge exception,” but holding that the exception d | 1 | 1 |
Baljinder Sandhu v. Jay Kanzler, Jr.green1 sentence2023See, e.g., Sandhu v. Kanzler, 932 F.3d 1107, 1116 (8th Cir. 2019) (stating that legal malpractice claims “premised on straightforward acts or omissions such as an obviously missed deadline or a clear case of stealing client funds” would not need to be supported by expert testimony (quotation simplified)); Boyle v. Welsh, 589 N.W.2d 118, 127 (Neb. 1999) (stating that “failure to file a suit that should otherwise be filed within the time required by the statute of limitations is a deviation from the standard of care falling within the common knowledge exception,” but holding that the exception d | 1 | 1 |
Boyle v. Welshgreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Sandhu v. Kanzler, 932 F.3d 1107, 1116 (8th Cir. 2019) (stating that legal malpractice claims “premised on straightforward acts or omissions such as an obviously missed deadline or a clear case of stealing client funds” would not need to be supported by expert testimony (quotation simplified)); Boyle v. Welsh, 589 N.W.2d 118, 127 (Neb. 1999) (stating that “failure to file a suit that should otherwise be filed within the time required by the statute of limitations is a deviation from the standard of care falling within the common knowledge exception,” but holding that the exception d | 1 | 1 |
Becky J. Kidd v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc.green1 sentence2014Id. ¶ 26 n. 2; cf. Kidd v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 88 F.3d 848, 850, 852-53 (10th Cir.1996) (holding that the plaintiff, who was injured skiing into a single-strand diversionary rope, could not avoid summary judgment by simply arguing that multiple ropes should have been used, and stating, "[The plaintiff] produced [o]nly speculation, not expert testimony ... in attempting to rebut Defendant's submitted compliance with the [Ski Safety] Act and ... the record [is] absent of competent evidence that the closure fell outside industry norms" (first omission and second and fourth alterations in origi | 1 | 1 |
Berry v v. Greater Park City Co.green2 sentences2008See Berry, 2007 UT 87, ¶ 30 , 171 P.3d 442 . 2008See Berry, 2007 UT 87, ¶ 30 , 171 P.3d 442 . | 1 | 1 |
Birkner v. Salt Lake Countygreen1 sentence1991Birkner v. Salt Lake County, 771 P.2d at 1057. 17 . | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. Besseygreen1 sentence1991See, e.g., Carter v. Bessey, 93 P.2d at 492-93 (applying the substantial deviation test); see infra notes 24-31 and accompanying text. 16 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kirkham v. McConkie
green
1 sentence2023While we acknowledge that, at some level, resolution of this inquiry depends on how the malpractice allegations are framed, we disagree with Trustees’ contention that the attorney mistakes they allege are, under these circumstances, so clear as to be obvious to any layperson. 20210786-CA 17 2023 UT App 82 Kendall v. Utah Estate Planners ¶35 In an effort to make their malpractice allegations seem as obvious as possible, Trustees characterize Christensen’s alleged mistakes as follows: they say Christensen should have “(1) communicated advice to Taylor on the proper . . . allocation of RMDs or ma | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Kendall v. Utah Estate Planners PLLC
green
1 sentence2023While we acknowledge that, at some level, resolution of this inquiry depends on how the malpractice allegations are framed, we disagree with Trustees’ contention that the attorney mistakes they allege are, under these circumstances, so clear as to be obvious to any layperson. 20210786-CA 17 2023 UT App 82 Kendall v. Utah Estate Planners ¶35 In an effort to make their malpractice allegations seem as obvious as possible, Trustees characterize Christensen’s alleged mistakes as follows: they say Christensen should have “(1) communicated advice to Taylor on the proper . . . allocation of RMDs or ma | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.