elements of plain error (Utah) · Go Syfert
← Utah issues

elements of plain error in Utah

5 Utah opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2022 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Dunngreen
utah · 1993 · cited in 2 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2011–2014
2 sentences

2014See State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1208 (Utah 1993) (explaining that the doctrine of plain error requires an appellant to show that an error exists, that the error should have been obvious to the trial court, and that the error is harmful).

2011To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must establish that "M) [aln error exists; (1) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (Mi) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant, or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined." Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 13 , 10 P.3d 346 (alteration in original) (quoting Dunn, 850 P.2d at 1206 ). ¶27 Whether filing one document that affects several people and each of their interests in their property is one count of filing a wrongful lien, or whet

12
Berkshires, L.L.C. v. Sykesgreen
utahctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008See Berkshires, LLC v. Sykes, 2005 UT App 536, ¶ 21 , 127 P.3d 1243 (listing the elements of plain error). *622 1.

2008See Berkshires, LLC v. Sykes, 2005 UT App 536, ¶ 21 , 127 P.3d 1243 (listing the elements of plain error). *622 1.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Carrera green
utahctapp · 2022
2 sentences

2022But if Carrera is re-tried on that charge, in my view the “serious bodily injury” sentencing enhancement should not be submitted to the jury, because the State did not produce sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Carrera caused any such injury to Betty. 20181053-CA 23 2022 UT App 100 State v. Carrera III.

2022But if Carrera is re-tried on that charge, in my view the “serious bodily injury” sentencing enhancement should not be submitted to the jury, because the State did not produce sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Carrera caused any such injury to Betty. 20181053-CA 23 2022 UT App 100 State v. Carrera III.

22022–2022
State v. Holgate green
utah · 2000
2 sentences

2011To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must establish that "M) [aln error exists; (1) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (Mi) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant, or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined." Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 13 , 10 P.3d 346 (alteration in original) (quoting Dunn, 850 P.2d at 1206 ). ¶27 Whether filing one document that affects several people and each of their interests in their property is one count of filing a wrongful lien, or whet

2011To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must establish that "M) [aln error exists; (1) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (Mi) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant, or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined." Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 13 , 10 P.3d 346 (alteration in original) (quoting Dunn, 850 P.2d at 1206 ). ¶27 Whether filing one document that affects several people and each of their interests in their property is one count of filing a wrongful lien, or whet

12011–2011

Statutes the citing opinions construe

UT § Utah Code § 76-5-302 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OR 8 (2004–2024) UT 5 (2008–2022) GA 4 (2015–2026) IL 4 (2018–2019) VI 3 (2012–2012) MN 3 (2003–2011) OH 2 (2020–2025) CO 2 (2024–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check