5 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thomas A. Paulsen Co. v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2008See Thomas A. Paulsen Co., 770 P.2d at 129-30 (concluding, under a prior but similar statute, that agency's authority "to correct clerical errors ... is comparable to that provided to trial courts by Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a)"). 2008See Thomas A. Paulsen Co., 770 P.2d at 129-30 (concluding, under a prior but similar statute, that agency's authority "to correct clerical errors ... is comparable to that provided to trial courts by Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a)"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hudecekgreen2 sentences2004Similarly, in State v. Lara, we referred to an appeal of a bindover order that was heard in this court as a "direct appeal." 2003 UT App 318, ¶ 20 , 79 P.3d 951 . [2] Given this construct, Utah courts have insisted that though a district court exercises its "appellate jurisdiction" when conducting a trial de novo, State v. Hudecek, 965 P.2d 1069, 1071 (Utah Ct.App.1998), the trials de novo that are held before the district courts must not be characterized in the same manner as a standard appeal which is held before the court of appeals or supreme court. 2004Given this construct, Utah courts have insisted that though a district court exercises its "appellate jurisdiction" when conducting a trial de novo, State v. Hudecek, 965 P.2d 1069, 1071 (Utah Ct.App.1998), the trials de novo that are held before the district courts must not be characterized in the same manner as a standard appeal which is held before the court of appeals or supreme court. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hinsongreen2 sentences2004In State v. Hinson , this court clearly drew this distinction, therein declaring that certain rules governing a case filed "[i]n a conventional appeal environment ... [have] no place in an appeal from a justice court judgment." 966 P.2d 273, 275-76 (Utah Ct.App.1998). 2004In State v. Hinson, this court clearly drew this distinction, therein declaring that certain rules governing a case filed “[i]n a conventional appeal environment ... [have] no place in an appeal from a justice court judgment.” 966 P.2d 273, 275-76 (Utah Ct.App.1998). | 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. Murphy
green
2 sentences2019I write separately, as I did recently in State v. Murphy, 2019 UT App 64 , to again express reservations about the manner in which the doctrine of chances (the Doctrine) is currently being used in Utah. 2019I write separately, as I did recently in State v. Murphy , 2019 UT App 64 , 441 P.3d 787 , to again express reservations about the manner in which the doctrine of chances (the Doctrine) is currently being used in Utah. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Marchet
green
2 sentences2012We decline Marchet's invitation to revisit our earlier decision in Marchet I, 2009 UT App 262 , 219 P.3d 75 , cert. denied, 221 P.3d 837 (Utah 2009), as we also declined to do so in State v. Marchet (Marchet I1), 2012 UT App 197 , ¶ 10 n. 4, 284 P.3d 668 , petition for cert. filed, August 17, 2012 (No. 20120696). 2012We decline Marchet's invitation to revisit our earlier decision in Marchet I, 2009 UT App 262 , 219 P.3d 75 , cert. denied, 221 P.3d 837 (Utah 2009), as we also declined to do so in State v. Marchet (Marchet I1), 2012 UT App 197 , ¶ 10 n. 4, 284 P.3d 668 , petition for cert. filed, August 17, 2012 (No. 20120696). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Sherratt
green
1 sentence2012We decline Marchet's invitation to revisit our earlier decision in Marchet I, 2009 UT App 262 , 219 P.3d 75 , cert. denied, 221 P.3d 837 (Utah 2009), as we also declined to do so in State v. Marchet (Marchet I1), 2012 UT App 197 , ¶ 10 n. 4, 284 P.3d 668 , petition for cert. filed, August 17, 2012 (No. 20120696). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Marchet
green
2 sentences2012We decline Marchet's invitation to revisit our earlier decision in Marchet I, 2009 UT App 262 , 219 P.3d 75 , cert. denied, 221 P.3d 837 (Utah 2009), as we also declined to do so in State v. Marchet (Marchet I1), 2012 UT App 197 , ¶ 10 n. 4, 284 P.3d 668 , petition for cert. filed, August 17, 2012 (No. 20120696). 2012We decline Marchet's invitation to revisit our earlier decision in Marchet I, 2009 UT App 262 , 219 P.3d 75 , cert. denied, 221 P.3d 837 (Utah 2009), as we also declined to do so in State v. Marchet (Marchet I1), 2012 UT App 197 , ¶ 10 n. 4, 284 P.3d 668 , petition for cert. filed, August 17, 2012 (No. 20120696). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Lara
green
2 sentences2004Similarly, in State v. Lara, we referred to an appeal of a bindover order that was heard in this court as a "direct appeal." 2003 UT App 318, ¶ 20 , 79 P.3d 951 . [2] Given this construct, Utah courts have insisted that though a district court exercises its "appellate jurisdiction" when conducting a trial de novo, State v. Hudecek, 965 P.2d 1069, 1071 (Utah Ct.App.1998), the trials de novo that are held before the district courts must not be characterized in the same manner as a standard appeal which is held before the court of appeals or supreme court. 2004Similarly, in State v. Lara, we referred to an appeal of a bindover order that was heard in this court as a "direct appeal." 2003 UT App 318, ¶ 20 , 79 P.3d 951 . [2] Given this construct, Utah courts have insisted that though a district court exercises its "appellate jurisdiction" when conducting a trial de novo, State v. Hudecek, 965 P.2d 1069, 1071 (Utah Ct.App.1998), the trials de novo that are held before the district courts must not be characterized in the same manner as a standard appeal which is held before the court of appeals or supreme court. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Nelson
green
2 sentences1996In State v. Nelson, 725 P.2d 1353 , 1355-56 & n. 3 (Utah 1986), we construed Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-411 , a statute allowing the admission of out-of-court statements of child abuse victims. 1996In State v. Nelson, 725 P.2d 1353 , 1355-56 & n. 3 (Utah 1986), we construed Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-411 , a statute allowing the admission of out-of-court statements of child abuse victims. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.