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 1999–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
ND v. Abgreen2 sentences2008Finally, we review the [trial] court's ruling on admissibility for abuse of discretion." State v. Workman, 2005 UT 66, ¶ 10 , 122 P.3d 639 (citations omitted); 122 P.3d 639 , see also N.D. v. A.B., 2003 UT App 215, ¶ 11 , 73 P.3d 971 ('Because an admissibility decision under [the residual hearsay exception] requires the application of facts to the legal requirements of the rule, ... the trial court has some discretion in making this determination."). 2008Finally, we review the [trial] court's ruling on admissibility for abuse of discretion." State v. Workman, 2005 UT 66, ¶ 10 , 122 P.3d 639 (citations omitted); 122 P.3d 639 , see also N.D. v. A.B., 2003 UT App 215, ¶ 11 , 73 P.3d 971 ('Because an admissibility decision under [the residual hearsay exception] requires the application of facts to the legal requirements of the rule, ... the trial court has some discretion in making this determination."). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Palmergreen1 sentence1999State v. Palmer, 803 P.2d 1249, 1253 (Utah Ct.App.1990). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Salt Lake City v. Williams
green
1 sentence2016Evaluating the admissibility of evidence under the hearsay exceptions "requires the application of facts to the legal requirements of the rule," and the district court "has some discretion in making this determination." Salt Lake City v. Williams, 2006 UT App 493 , ¶ 10, 128 P.3d 47 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Workman
green
2 sentences2008Finally, we review the [trial] court's ruling on admissibility for abuse of discretion." State v. Workman, 2005 UT 66, ¶ 10 , 122 P.3d 639 (citations omitted); 122 P.3d 639 , see also N.D. v. A.B., 2003 UT App 215, ¶ 11 , 73 P.3d 971 ('Because an admissibility decision under [the residual hearsay exception] requires the application of facts to the legal requirements of the rule, ... the trial court has some discretion in making this determination."). 2008Finally, we review the [trial] court's ruling on admissibility for abuse of discretion." State v. Workman, 2005 UT 66, ¶ 10 , 122 P.3d 639 (citations omitted); 122 P.3d 639 , see also N.D. v. A.B., 2003 UT App 215, ¶ 11 , 73 P.3d 971 ('Because an admissibility decision under [the residual hearsay exception] requires the application of facts to the legal requirements of the rule, ... the trial court has some discretion in making this determination."). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Pena
green
1 sentence2003Cf. id. (granting trial court "corresponding measure of discretion" in making its "fact sensitive" hearsay admissibility determination under statement against interest exception contained in rule 804(b)(3) of the Utah Rules of Evidence). ¶ 12 Second, Stepfather argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's issuance of the protective order against him pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 30-6-2 (1) (1998). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Webster
green
1 sentence2003Cf. State v. Webster, 2001 UT App 238 , ¶ 9, 32 P.3d 976 (articulating same required determination for review of "fact sensitive" hearsay admissibility decision under statement against interest exception contained in rule 804(b)(3) of the Utah Rules of Evidence). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.