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 1987–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Franklingreen2 sentences2014See State v. Franklin, 735 P.2d 34, 36-38 (Utah 1987) (declining "to follow the lead of some state courts that have interpreted their state constitutions as barring prosecutions by the state after federal prosecutions"). 1995In State v. Franklin, 735 P.2d 34 (Utah 1987), the Utah Supreme Court expressly declined to abandon the doctrine. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Robertsongreen2 sentences2026See Robertson, 2017 UT 27, ¶ 33 (noting that Utah’s statute manifests a “legislative rejection of” the dual sovereignty doctrine). 2026See Robertson, 2017 UT 27, ¶ 33 (noting that Utah’s statute manifests a “legislative rejection of” the dual sovereignty doctrine). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Byrnsgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Byrns, 911 P.2d 981, 984 (Utah Ct.App.1995) (stating that Bartkus "carved out a narrow exception" to the dual sovereignty doctrine's application to res judicata). 2014State v. Byrns, 911 P.2d 981, 984 (Utah Ct.App.1995) ("Under the 'dual sovereignty' doctrine, principles of collateral estoppel generally cannot be invoked to bar the relitigation of an issue by a separate sovereign."); accord United States v. Smith, 446 F.2d 200, 202 (4th Cir.1971) ("'The federal government is neither the same as nor in privity with the State of Virginia and therefore is not barred from relitigating facts resolved in defendant's favor in the former prosecution."). | 1 | 1 |
Bartkus v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2014See 359 U.S. 121, 123-24 , 79 S.Ct. 676 , 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959). 2014See 359 U.S. 121, 123-24 , 79 S.Ct. 676 , 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Melvin Smithgreen1 sentence2014State v. Byrns, 911 P.2d 981, 984 (Utah Ct.App.1995) ("Under the 'dual sovereignty' doctrine, principles of collateral estoppel generally cannot be invoked to bar the relitigation of an issue by a separate sovereign."); accord United States v. Smith, 446 F.2d 200, 202 (4th Cir.1971) ("'The federal government is neither the same as nor in privity with the State of Virginia and therefore is not barred from relitigating facts resolved in defendant's favor in the former prosecution."). | 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. Beltran-Perez
green
1 sentence2026The governing statute reads as follows: If a defendant’s conduct establishes the commission of one or more offenses within the concurrent jurisdiction of this state and of another jurisdiction, 20231121‐CA 5 2026 UT App 36 State v. Beltran‐Perez federal or state, the prosecution in the other jurisdiction is a bar to a subsequent prosecution in this state if: (1) the former prosecution resulted in an acquittal, conviction, or termination of prosecution, as those terms are defined in Section 76‐1‐403; and (2) the subsequent prosecution is for the same offense or offenses. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Boudreaux v. State
green
2 sentences2014Similarly, in order for issue preclusion to apply, "the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted must have been a party to or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication." Boudreaux v. State, 1999 UT App 310, ¶ 21 , 989 P.2d 1103 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 4 24 This court, relying in part on the dual sovereignty doctrine, has previously recognized that the State and the federal government are not considered to be in privity for purposes of res judicata. 2014Similarly, in order for issue preclusion to apply, "the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted must have been a party to or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication." Boudreaux v. State, 1999 UT App 310, ¶ 21 , 989 P.2d 1103 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 4 24 This court, relying in part on the dual sovereignty doctrine, has previously recognized that the State and the federal government are not considered to be in privity for purposes of res judicata. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.
red
2 sentences2005Id. at 412 , 98 S.Ct. 1123 . 2005Id. at 412 , 98 S.Ct. 1123 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
United States v. Lanza
green
2 sentences1987When a defendant in a single act violates the “peace and dignity” of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct “offences.” United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 , 43 S.Ct. 141 [142-43], 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922). 1987When a defendant in a single act violates the “peace and dignity” of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct “offences.” United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 , 43 S.Ct. 141 [142-43], 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.