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 1 courts 2009–2017 0 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. Mooregreen2 sentences2017Further, unless a party is challenging the validity of his conviction in an otherwise moot appeal, “the demonstrated consequences must be actual and adverse, not speculative or hypothetical, for the case to fit within this exception.” 2 Id. ¶¶ 19, 23; see also State v. Moore, 2009 UT App 128, ¶¶ 14, 17 , 210 P.3d 967 (“[T]he hypothetical impact of the disciplinary record on a future parole hearing does not create a collateral legal consequence that prevents the conclusion that [the petitioner’s] claim is moot.”). 2017Further, unless a party is challenging the validity of his conviction in an otherwise moot appeal, “the demonstrated consequences must be actual and adverse, not speculative or hypothetical, for the case to fit within this exception.” 2 Id. ¶¶ 19, 23; see also State v. Moore, 2009 UT App 128, ¶¶ 14, 17 , 210 P.3d 967 (“[T]he hypothetical impact of the disciplinary record on a future parole hearing does not create a collateral legal consequence that prevents the conclusion that [the petitioner’s] claim is moot.”). | 3 | 4 |
Spencer v. Kemnagreen2 sentences2016See McClellan, 2014 UT App 271, ¶ 5, 339 P.3d 942 (dismissing case as moot where- the asserted consequences related to the appellant’s ability to improve his “living situation and support network in the community,” and citing Spenser, 523 U.S. at 16 note 8, 118 S.Ct. 978 , for the proposition that “an injury to reputation or stigma resulting from a criminal conviction is not adequate alone to overcome mootness”); Moore, 2009 UT App 128, ¶ 14 , 210 P.3d 967 (“[T]he hypothetical impact of the disciplinary record on a future parole hearing does not create-a collateral legal consequence that preve 2016See McClellan, 2014 UT App 271, ¶ 5, 339 P.3d 942 (dismissing case as moot where- the asserted consequences related to the appellant’s ability to improve his “living situation and support network in the community,” and citing Spenser, 523 U.S. at 16 note 8, 118 S.Ct. 978 , for the proposition that “an injury to reputation or stigma resulting from a criminal conviction is not adequate alone to overcome mootness”); Moore, 2009 UT App 128, ¶ 14 , 210 P.3d 967 (“[T]he hypothetical impact of the disciplinary record on a future parole hearing does not create-a collateral legal consequence that preve | 1 | 2 |
State v. McClellangreen2 sentences2016See McClellan, 2014 UT App 271, ¶ 5, 339 P.3d 942 (dismissing case as moot where- the asserted consequences related to the appellant’s ability to improve his “living situation and support network in the community,” and citing Spenser, 523 U.S. at 16 note 8, 118 S.Ct. 978 , for the proposition that “an injury to reputation or stigma resulting from a criminal conviction is not adequate alone to overcome mootness”); Moore, 2009 UT App 128, ¶ 14 , 210 P.3d 967 (“[T]he hypothetical impact of the disciplinary record on a future parole hearing does not create-a collateral legal consequence that preve 2016See McClellan, 2014 UT App 271, ¶ 5, 339 P.3d 942 (dismissing case as moot where- the asserted consequences related to the appellant’s ability to improve his “living situation and support network in the community,” and citing Spenser, 523 U.S. at 16 note 8, 118 S.Ct. 978 , for the proposition that “an injury to reputation or stigma resulting from a criminal conviction is not adequate alone to overcome mootness”); Moore, 2009 UT App 128, ¶ 14 , 210 P.3d 967 (“[T]he hypothetical impact of the disciplinary record on a future parole hearing does not create-a collateral legal consequence that preve | 1 | 1 |
Barnett v. Adamsgreen1 sentence2016See id. (concluding that the appellant had alleged collateral consequences that were “merely speculative” where she did not assert “injuries that she has actually suffered or [would] even likely suffer” in the future); Moore, 2009 UT App 128, ¶¶ 13-14 , 210 P.3d 967 (noting that the administrative action against-defendant “entailed no .collateral legal consequences of the kind that result from a criminal conviction” where, for example, the decision “to place [the defendant] in solitary confinement will have no bearing on his ability to vote, engage in certain businesses, or serve on a jury” an | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.