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 1994–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
House v. Armour of America, Inc.green1 sentence2020See id. at 343, 346 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vigilgreen1 sentence1997Because of the inadequate analysis, we decline to address [Hart’s article VI, section 26] claim on appeal.” State v. Vigil, 922 P.2d 15, 28 (Utah Ct.App.1996) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Coffman v. Keene Corp.green2 sentences1994See Coffman v. Keene Corp., 133 N.J. 581 , 628 A.2d 710, 716 (1993). 1994See Coffman v. Keene Corp., 133 N.J. 581 , 628 A.2d 710, 716 (1993). | 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. Marshall
green
1 sentence2025A district “court’s error in failing to conduct an adequate inquiry into whether a defendant’s absence was voluntary does not merit reversal . . . unless the defendant was prejudiced by the lack of adequate inquiry.” Wanosik I, 2001 UT App 241, ¶ 26 . 20230383-CA 13 2025 UT App 79 State v. Marshall ¶26 Our supreme court recently clarified that there are “three categories of standards for proving prejudice” for constitutional errors. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Wanosik
green
1 sentence2025A district “court’s error in failing to conduct an adequate inquiry into whether a defendant’s absence was voluntary does not merit reversal . . . unless the defendant was prejudiced by the lack of adequate inquiry.” Wanosik I, 2001 UT App 241, ¶ 26 . 20230383-CA 13 2025 UT App 79 State v. Marshall ¶26 Our supreme court recently clarified that there are “three categories of standards for proving prejudice” for constitutional errors. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Alcazar v. University of Utah Hospitals & Clinics
green
2 sentences2017As noted above, the-entirety of the trial court’s permitted questioning on the subject relied on jurors personally identifying and acknowledging potential or actual bias—an inadequate inquiry that left Holm “without the necessary information ... to ferret out a potential juror’s actual bias or to intelligently exercise peremptory challenges, thus prejudicing [him].” See Alcazar, 2008 UT App 222, ¶ 18 , 188 P.3d 490 . 2017As noted above, the-entirety of the trial court’s permitted questioning on the subject relied on jurors personally identifying and acknowledging potential or actual bias—an inadequate inquiry that left Holm “without the necessary information ... to ferret out a potential juror’s actual bias or to intelligently exercise peremptory challenges, thus prejudicing [him].” See Alcazar, 2008 UT App 222, ¶ 18 , 188 P.3d 490 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.