5 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jau-Fei Chen v. Stewartgreen2 sentences2013See Chen, 2004 UT 82 , ¶¶ 73–83, and Kimball v. Kimball, 2009 UT App 233 , ¶ 20 n.5, 217 P.3d 733 , for a more detailed explanation of the marshalling requirement. 7 ASC UTAH v. WOLF MOUNTAIN Opinion of the Court ¶22 The district judge who presided over a trial is in a far better position than an appellate court to determine, for example, whether the evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict or whether the jury awarded damages “under the influence of passion or prejudice.” UTAH R. 2013See Chen, 2004 UT 82, ¶¶ 73-83 , 100 P.3d 1177 , and Kimball v. Kimball, 2009 UT App 233 , ¶ 20 n. 5, 217 P.3d 733 , for a more detailed explanation of the marshalling requirement. 4 . | 2 | 2 |
Kimball v. Kimballgreen2 sentences2013See Chen, 2004 UT 82 , ¶¶ 73–83, and Kimball v. Kimball, 2009 UT App 233 , ¶ 20 n.5, 217 P.3d 733 , for a more detailed explanation of the marshalling requirement. 7 ASC UTAH v. WOLF MOUNTAIN Opinion of the Court ¶22 The district judge who presided over a trial is in a far better position than an appellate court to determine, for example, whether the evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict or whether the jury awarded damages “under the influence of passion or prejudice.” UTAH R. 2013See Chen, 2004 UT 82 , ¶¶ 73–83, and Kimball v. Kimball, 2009 UT App 233 , ¶ 20 n.5, 217 P.3d 733 , for a more detailed explanation of the marshalling requirement. 7 ASC UTAH v. WOLF MOUNTAIN Opinion of the Court ¶22 The district judge who presided over a trial is in a far better position than an appellate court to determine, for example, whether the evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict or whether the jury awarded damages “under the influence of passion or prejudice.” UTAH R. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Nielsen
green
2 sentences2017Father further argues 'the fifteen page limit of the petition makes it impossible for a party arguing insufficiency of the evidence to meet the marshalling requirement, for "a party who fails to identify and deal with supportive evidence wjll never persuade an appellate court to reverse under the deferential standard of review that applies to such issues." State v. Nielsen, 2014 UT 10, ¶ 40 , 326 P.3d 645 ; see Utah R. 2017Father further argues 'the fifteen page limit of the petition makes it impossible for a party arguing insufficiency of the evidence to meet the marshalling requirement, for "a party who fails to identify and deal with supportive evidence wjll never persuade an appellate court to reverse under the deferential standard of review that applies to such issues." State v. Nielsen, 2014 UT 10, ¶ 40 , 326 P.3d 645 ; see Utah R. | 3 | 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.