5 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Briggsgreen2 sentences2015See State v. Briggs, 2006 UT App 448, ¶ 4 , 147 P.3d 969 (stating that claimed errors must be brought to the attention of the district court to give the court an opportunity to correct any error). 2015See State v. Briggs, 2006 UT App 448, ¶ 4 , 147 P.3d 969 (stating that claimed errors must be brought to the attention of the district court to give the court an opportunity to correct any error). | 2 | 2 |
Holman v. Callister, Duncan & Nebekergreen1 sentence2012See State v. Briggs, 2006 UT App 448, ¶4 , 147 P.3d 969 (stating that claimed errors must be brought to the attention of the district court to give the court an opportunity to correct any error); Holman v. Callister, Duncan & Nebeker, 905 P.2d 895, 899 (Utah Ct.App.1995) (stating that a litigant's failure to raise an issue with the district court fails to preserve the claim for appeal). 1 4 Accordingly, because Wall failed to preserve the issue of standing for appellate review and he has failed to raise any other substantial issues for review, we affirm. | 1 | 1 |
438 Main Street v. Easy Heat, Inc.green2 sentences2010See generally 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72, ¶ 51 , 99 P.3d 801 ("[I]n order to preserve an *172 issue for appeal[,] the issue must be presented to the trial court in such a way that the trial court has an opportunity to rule on that issue." (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2010See generally 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72, ¶ 51 , 99 P.3d 801 ("[I]n order to preserve an *172 issue for appeal[,] the issue must be presented to the trial court in such a way that the trial court has an opportunity to rule on that issue." (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 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. Winfield
green
2 sentences2009State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 14 , 128 P.3d 1171 ("[UJnder the doctrine of invited error, we have declined to engage in even plain error review when 'counsel, either by statement or act, affirmatively represented to the [trial] court that he or she had no objection to the [proceedings]. " (alterations in original)(quoting State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 54 , 70 P.3d 111 )). 2009State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 14 , 128 P.3d 1171 ("[UJnder the doctrine of invited error, we have declined to engage in even plain error review when 'counsel, either by statement or act, affirmatively represented to the [trial] court that he or she had no objection to the [proceedings]. " (alterations in original)(quoting State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 54 , 70 P.3d 111 )). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Hamilton
green
2 sentences2009State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 14 , 128 P.3d 1171 ("[UJnder the doctrine of invited error, we have declined to engage in even plain error review when 'counsel, either by statement or act, affirmatively represented to the [trial] court that he or she had no objection to the [proceedings]. " (alterations in original)(quoting State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 54 , 70 P.3d 111 )). 2009State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 14 , 128 P.3d 1171 ("[UJnder the doctrine of invited error, we have declined to engage in even plain error review when 'counsel, either by statement or act, affirmatively represented to the [trial] court that he or she had no objection to the [proceedings]. " (alterations in original)(quoting State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 54 , 70 P.3d 111 )). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
VanDyke v. Mountain Coin MacHine Distributors, Inc.
green
1 sentence1995Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.