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 2010–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jacobs v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Jacobs v. State, 2001 UT 17, ¶ 23 , 20 P.3d 382 (explaining that “it was a reasonable exercise of professional judgment for [the defendant’s] counsel to rely on the experts’ unanimous conclusion that” the defendant was not incompetent to stand trial). 2019See Jacobs v. State, 2001 UT 17, ¶ 23 , 20 P.3d 382 (explaining that “it was a reasonable exercise of professional judgment for [the defendant’s] counsel to rely on the experts’ unanimous conclusion that” the defendant was not incompetent to stand trial). | 1 | 1 |
Archuleta v. Galetkagreen2 sentences2010See Archuleta, 2008 UT 76, ¶ 7 . ¶ 17 The district court began its rule 11(b)(2) analysis by concluding that Mrs. Gillmor's claims were barred by res judicata: neither party had contested the privity and finality elements; and the present suit involved the same claim as the 1984 and 2001 suits because each suit claimed access to the Gillmor property based on facts and legal theories that had been available at those times. 2010See Archuleta, 2008 UT 76, ¶ 7 . {17 The district court began its rule 11(b)(2) analysis by concluding that Mrs. Gill-mor's claims were barred by res judicata: neither party had contested the privity and finality elements; and the present suit involved the same claim as the 1984 and 2001 suits because each suit claimed aceess to the Gillmor property based on facts and legal theories that had been available at those times. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bountiful City v. Baize
green
1 sentence2021That’s it.” Baize, 2019 UT App 24, ¶ 11 . ¶21 The district court began its analysis by reading aloud the definition of the relevant mens rea for the class C misdemeanor at issue—“criminal negligence.” See UTAH CODE § 76-2-103(4). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Hudema v. Carpenter
green
2 sentences2011The district court reasoned that "[the change of custody from [Mother] to [Father] is not a modification of the [dlecree" but was instead "enforcement of the decree." The court thus stated that it was "granting [Father]'s motion for temporary orders, but not as such," for although it was ruling in Father's favor, it was "enfore[ing] ... the decree ... [and] not [granting] a temporary order." Accordingly, the district court's ultimate decision was to enforce the divorce decree. 2 ¶6 The district court began its analysis by briefly conducting the bifurcated inquiry required by Utah law in custod 2011The district court reasoned that "[the change of custody from [Mother] to [Father] is not a modification of the [dlecree" but was instead "enforcement of the decree." The court thus stated that it was "granting [Father]'s motion for temporary orders, but not as such," for although it was ruling in Father's favor, it was "enfore[ing] ... the decree ... [and] not [granting] a temporary order." Accordingly, the district court's ultimate decision was to enforce the divorce decree. 2 ¶6 The district court began its analysis by briefly conducting the bifurcated inquiry required by Utah law in custod | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Mora
green
1 sentence2011In Bluemel, the court of appeals stated that " '[iIt is well established under Utah law that we will presume harm ... when a trial court fails to inform a defendant of his constitutional rights under rule 11. " Id. 110 (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Mora, 2008 UT App 117 , ¶ 22, 69 P.3d 838 ). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Bluemel v. State
green
2 sentences2011A. A Trial Court's Failure to Strictly Comply With Rule 11(e) Constitutes Good Cause to Withdraw a Guilty Plea 142 The district court began its analysis of Mr. Lovell's plea with Bluemel v. *817 State, 2006 UT App 141 , 184 P.3d 181 , rev'd on other grounds by Bluemel v. State, 2007 UT 90 , 173 P.3d 842 . 2011A. A Trial Court's Failure to Strictly Comply With Rule 11(e) Constitutes Good Cause to Withdraw a Guilty Plea 142 The district court began its analysis of Mr. Lovell's plea with Bluemel v. *817 State, 2006 UT App 141 , 184 P.3d 181 , rev'd on other grounds by Bluemel v. State, 2007 UT 90 , 173 P.3d 842 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Bluemel v. State
neutral
1 sentence2011A. A Trial Court's Failure to Strictly Comply With Rule 11(e) Constitutes Good Cause to Withdraw a Guilty Plea 142 The district court began its analysis of Mr. Lovell's plea with Bluemel v. *817 State, 2006 UT App 141 , 184 P.3d 181 , rev'd on other grounds by Bluemel v. State, 2007 UT 90 , 173 P.3d 842 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.