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 1981–2017 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 in Interest of Baby Girl Mariegreen1 sentence1981Utah Code Annotated, 1953, § 78-3a-48(2), a section of the Juvenile Court Act, prescribes specific procedures for the remedy of “termination of parental rights,” including the holding of a hearing “specifically on the question of terminating the rights of the parent or parents.” In State in Interest of Baby Girl Marie, Utah, 561 P.2d 1046, 1047 (1947), which involved a failure to advise the mother of her right to counsel, we held that if the juvenile court fails to give strict adherence to the procedures prescribed in the statute its decree of termination will be invalid. | 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. Clopten
green
2 sentences2017In Defendant's pre-remand brief, he states that "[t]he fact that each party may be able to benefit from the expert witness does not diminish the court's holding and requirement 'that, in cases where eyewitnesses are identifying a stranger and where one or more established factors affecting accuracy are present, the testimony of an eyewitness expert will meet rule 702's requirement to "assist the trier of fact.” ’ " (Quoting State v. Clopten, 2009 UT 84, ¶ 32 , 223 P.3d 1103 .) But rule 702 of the Utah Rules of Evidence governs only the admissibility of expert testimony, and Clopten did not tra 2017In Defendant's pre-remand brief, he states that "[t]he fact that each party may be able to benefit from the expert witness does not diminish the court's holding and requirement 'that, in cases where eyewitnesses are identifying a stranger and where one or more established factors affecting accuracy are present, the testimony of an eyewitness expert will meet rule 702's requirement to "assist the trier of fact.” ’ " (Quoting State v. Clopten, 2009 UT 84, ¶ 32 , 223 P.3d 1103 .) But rule 702 of the Utah Rules of Evidence governs only the admissibility of expert testimony, and Clopten did not tra | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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 |
Combe v. Warren's Family Drive-Inns, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005Not surprisingly, the Utah Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court holding that rule 54(e)(1) “does not go so far as to authorize the granting of relief on issues neither raised nor tried.” Id. ¶ 39 This is not a case where the trial court granted relief on a theory that was neither pleaded nor tried. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Madsen v. Clegg
green
2 sentences1984Similarly, in Madsen v. Clegg, Utah, 639 P.2d 726 (1981), we stressed the fact that the fence running between the two properties ran in a straight line, whereas the parties' deed lines which coincided along this course had two right-angle turns in them. 1984Similarly, in Madsen v. Clegg, Utah, 639 P.2d 726 (1981), we stressed the fact that the fence running between the two properties ran in a straight line, whereas the parties’ deed lines which coincided along this course had two right-angle turns in them. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Florence v. Hiline Equipment Co.
green
2 sentences1984More recently, in Florence v. Hiline Equipment Co., Utah, 581 P.2d 998 (1978), this Court in holding the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence not applicable, noted that both the joining owners knew where the true boundary was located and thus they did not treat a fence which ran between their properties as marking the boundary. 1984More recently, in Florence v. Hiline Equipment Co., Utah, 581 P.2d 998 (1978), this Court in holding the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence not applicable, noted that both the joining owners knew where the true boundary was located and thus they did not treat a fence which ran between their properties as marking the boundary. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.