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 2004–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2025On 4 Cite as: 2025 UT 48 Opinion of the Court October 15, 2024, the court denied Harris’s motion after determining that the State had “demonstrated substantial evidence to support the charge” and that Harris was “a risk to the victim, to himself and to young women in the public.” The court also concluded that Harris was a flight risk because he had taken Claire, a minor, across state lines and had fled from police in Oregon. 2025See id. ¶26 Under section 77-20-209, a defendant has a right to appeal when the court “issues a pretrial status order that orders the individual be detained during the time the individual awaits trial or other resolution of criminal charges.” The October 2024 order denying Harris’s motion for pretrial release fell within the terms of the statute because it was a pretrial status order that ordered Harris detained pending trial. | 1 | 1 |
Ortiz v. Geneva Rock Products, Inc.green1 sentence2011See id. ¶19 Here, the trial court gave a jury instruction based on However, over Harris's objection, it also gave a Jury instruction based on CV2019. 2 That instruction stated that "[Ilf Plaintiff had a physical, emotional, or mental condition before the time of the March 29, 2006 incident, she is not entitled to recover damages for that condition or disability," but that the jury should, if it is able, apportion damages between those attributable to Harris's pre-existing condition and those attributable to the Shop-Ko fall. 3 The form of the instruction is not at issue. 4 Harris objected to t | 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. Harris
green
1 sentence2024These included statements Wife had made about her current marital status, assertions she’d made about alleged threats to her life from other people, and statements that she’d made about other legal proceedings that she was involved in around the same time. 20220791-CA 4 2024 UT App 191 State v. Harris ¶13 When the prosecutor began his closing argument, he talked about the dynamics associated with domestic violence, including that domestic violence “happens behind closed doors” and abusers “expect their victim to stay quiet.” The prosecutor then commented on Harris’s presumption of innocence. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Valdez
green
2 sentences2012The challenging party must first make a "prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in the selection of the petit jury." State v. Valdez, 2006 UT 39, ¶ 15 , 140 P.3d 1219 . 2012The challenging party must first make a "prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in the selection of the petit jury." State v. Valdez, 2006 UT 39, ¶ 15 , 140 P.3d 1219 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Ambrose
green
2 sentences2004Specifically, we must address whether, given our decision in State v. Ambrose, 598 P.2d 354 (Utah 1979), Mr. Harris can properly bring an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss pursuant to Utah Code section 77-18a-1(1)(c), which provides that a defendant may appeal "an interlocutory order when upon petition for review the appellate court decides the appeal would be in the interest of justice," Utah Code Ann. § 77 -18a-1(1)(c) (1999). ¶ 12 Like the instant case, Ambrose involved a defendant's appeal from a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss on double 2004Specifically, we must address whether, given our decision in State v. Ambrose, 598 P.2d 354 (Utah 1979), Mr. Harris can properly bring an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss pursuant to Utah Code section 77-18a-1(1)(c), which provides that a defendant may appeal "an interlocutory order when upon petition for review the appellate court decides the appeal would be in the interest of justice," Utah Code Ann. § 77 -18a-1(1)(c) (1999). ¶ 12 Like the instant case, Ambrose involved a defendant's appeal from a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss on double | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.