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 1989–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Eldredgegreen2 sentences2010However, even assuming arguendo that the error should have been obvious to the trial court, cf. State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 , 35 n. 8 (Utah) (noting "that the obviousness requirement poses no rigid and insurmountable barrier to review" and stating that even if the misstatements are not "obvious," the court may "dispense with the requirement of obviousness so that justice can be done"), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 62 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989), an error is harmful only if it undermines our confidence in the verdict or, put another way, if "there is a reasonable likelihood of a more f 1999See State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29, 36 (Utah 1989) (holding that the obviousness of an error is hard to determine where there is no settled appellate law on point); State v. Emmett, 839 P.2d 781, 786 (Utah 1992) (relying on the “clarity of the law in this area” to find that error should have been obvious); State v. Baker, 963 P.2d 801, 805 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (refusing to find plain error where there is no settled case law in the state). ¶ 79 In conclusion, I concur in the result. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Bullockgreen1 sentence2010Plain error will not be found, however, "if a party through counsel has made a conscious decision to refrain from objecting." State v. Bullock, 791 P.2d 155, 158 (Utah 1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1024 , 110 S.Ct. 3270 , 111 L.Ed.2d 780 (1990). ¶ 29 We do not conclude that either the prosecution's "few seconds" statement or its characterization of "What if I lied?," taken alone, are so harmful as to undermine our confidence in the verdict. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bakergreen2 sentences1999See State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29, 36 (Utah 1989) (holding that the obviousness of an error is hard to determine where there is no settled appellate law on point); State v. Emmett, 839 P.2d 781, 786 (Utah 1992) (relying on the “clarity of the law in this area” to find that error should have been obvious); State v. Baker, 963 P.2d 801, 805 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (refusing to find plain error where there is no settled case law in the state). ¶ 79 In conclusion, I concur in the result. 1999See State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29, 36 (Utah 1989) (holding that the obviousness of an error is hard to determine where there is no settled appellate law on point); State v. Emmett, 839 P.2d 781, 786 (Utah 1992) (relying on the "clarity of the law in this area" to find that error should have been obvious); State v. Baker, 963 P.2d 801, 805 (Utah Ct.App. 1998) (refusing to find plain error where there is no settled case law in the state). ¶ 79 In conclusion, I concur in the result. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Emmettgreen2 sentences1999See State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29, 36 (Utah 1989) (holding that the obviousness of an error is hard to determine where there is no settled appellate law on point); State v. Emmett, 839 P.2d 781, 786 (Utah 1992) (relying on the “clarity of the law in this area” to find that error should have been obvious); State v. Baker, 963 P.2d 801, 805 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (refusing to find plain error where there is no settled case law in the state). ¶ 79 In conclusion, I concur in the result. 1999See State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29, 36 (Utah 1989) (holding that the obviousness of an error is hard to determine where there is no settled appellate law on point); State v. Emmett, 839 P.2d 781, 786 (Utah 1992) (relying on the "clarity of the law in this area" to find that error should have been obvious); State v. Baker, 963 P.2d 801, 805 (Utah Ct.App. 1998) (refusing to find plain error where there is no settled case law in the state). ¶ 79 In conclusion, I concur in the result. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Poegreen2 sentences1989See State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d 113 , 441 P.2d 512 (1968), appeal after remand, 24 Utah 2d 355 , 471 P.2d 870 (1970); Utah R.Evid. 103(d) advisory committee's note. [8] We note that the two plain error requirements of obviousness and harmfulness are related and that the obviousness requirement poses no rigid and insurmountable barrier to review. 1989See State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d 113 , 441 P.2d 512 (1968), appeal after remand, 24 Utah 2d 355 , 471 P.2d 870 (1970); Utah R.Evid. 103(d) advisory committee's note. [8] We note that the two plain error requirements of obviousness and harmfulness are related and that the obviousness requirement poses no rigid and insurmountable barrier to review. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Poegreen2 sentences1989See State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d 113 , 441 P.2d 512 (1968), appeal after remand, 24 Utah 2d 355 , 471 P.2d 870 (1970); Utah R.Evid. 103(d) advisory committee's note. [8] We note that the two plain error requirements of obviousness and harmfulness are related and that the obviousness requirement poses no rigid and insurmountable barrier to review. 1989See State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d 113 , 441 P.2d 512 (1968), appeal after remand, 24 Utah 2d 355 , 471 P.2d 870 (1970); Utah R.Evid. 103(d) advisory committee's note. [8] We note that the two plain error requirements of obviousness and harmfulness are related and that the obviousness requirement poses no rigid and insurmountable barrier to review. | 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. Griffin
green
2 sentences2026And since plain error review requires a showing of both an error and the obviousness of that error, see State v. Griffin, 2016 UT 33, ¶ 17 , 384 P.3d 186 , we reject this claim under plain error too. 2026And since plain error review requires a showing of both an error and the obviousness of that error, see State v. Griffin, 2016 UT 33, ¶ 17 , 384 P.3d 186 , we reject this claim under plain error too. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Dunn
green
1 sentence2010However, even assuming arguendo that the error should have been obvious to the trial court, cf. State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 , 35 n. 8 (Utah) (noting "that the obviousness requirement poses no rigid and insurmountable barrier to review" and stating that even if the misstatements are not "obvious," the court may "dispense with the requirement of obviousness so that justice can be done"), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 62 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989), an error is harmful only if it undermines our confidence in the verdict or, put another way, if "there is a reasonable likelihood of a more f | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Endsley v. Young
green
1 sentence2010Plain error will not be found, however, "if a party through counsel has made a conscious decision to refrain from objecting." State v. Bullock, 791 P.2d 155, 158 (Utah 1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1024 , 110 S.Ct. 3270 , 111 L.Ed.2d 780 (1990). ¶ 29 We do not conclude that either the prosecution's "few seconds" statement or its characterization of "What if I lied?," taken alone, are so harmful as to undermine our confidence in the verdict. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Parker v. Dugger
green
1 sentence2010Plain error will not be found, however, "if a party through counsel has made a conscious decision to refrain from objecting." State v. Bullock, 791 P.2d 155, 158 (Utah 1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1024 , 110 S.Ct. 3270 , 111 L.Ed.2d 780 (1990). ¶ 29 We do not conclude that either the prosecution's "few seconds" statement or its characterization of "What if I lied?," taken alone, are so harmful as to undermine our confidence in the verdict. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Erickson v. City of Webster Groves
green
1 sentence2010However, even assuming arguendo that the error should have been obvious to the trial court, cf. State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 , 35 n. 8 (Utah) (noting "that the obviousness requirement poses no rigid and insurmountable barrier to review" and stating that even if the misstatements are not "obvious," the court may "dispense with the requirement of obviousness so that justice can be done"), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 62 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989), an error is harmful only if it undermines our confidence in the verdict or, put another way, if "there is a reasonable likelihood of a more f | 1 | 2010–2010 |
LaMon v. Butler
green
1 sentence2010However, even assuming arguendo that the error should have been obvious to the trial court, cf. State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 , 35 n. 8 (Utah) (noting "that the obviousness requirement poses no rigid and insurmountable barrier to review" and stating that even if the misstatements are not "obvious," the court may "dispense with the requirement of obviousness so that justice can be done"), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 62 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989), an error is harmful only if it undermines our confidence in the verdict or, put another way, if "there is a reasonable likelihood of a more f | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Martinez v. United States
green
1 sentence2010However, even assuming arguendo that the error should have been obvious to the trial court, cf. State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 , 35 n. 8 (Utah) (noting "that the obviousness requirement poses no rigid and insurmountable barrier to review" and stating that even if the misstatements are not "obvious," the court may "dispense with the requirement of obviousness so that justice can be done"), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 62 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989), an error is harmful only if it undermines our confidence in the verdict or, put another way, if "there is a reasonable likelihood of a more f | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.