5 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frislie v. Department of Workforce Servicesgreen1 sentence2012See id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence1994Code R865-4-2D(D) (1994). 7 .While we agree with petitioners that the phrases "equal protection” or "uniform operation of law” need not have been talismanically intoned before the Tax Commission, the portions of the hearing transcript cited by petitioners fail to suggest that such concepts were in any way “raised to a level of consciousness stich that the [Tax Commission could] consider it.” State v. Brown, 856 P.2d 358, 361 (Utah App.1993) (quoting James v. Preston, 746 P.2d 799, 802 (Utah App.1987)). 8 . | 1 | 1 |
James v. Prestongreen1 sentence1994Code R865-4-2D(D) (1994). 7 .While we agree with petitioners that the phrases "equal protection” or "uniform operation of law” need not have been talismanically intoned before the Tax Commission, the portions of the hearing transcript cited by petitioners fail to suggest that such concepts were in any way “raised to a level of consciousness stich that the [Tax Commission could] consider it.” State v. Brown, 856 P.2d 358, 361 (Utah App.1993) (quoting James v. Preston, 746 P.2d 799, 802 (Utah App.1987)). 8 . | 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. Forbush
green
1 sentence2024The rule has since been amended, and the relevant portions of the rule are now in rule 11(f) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. 20180319-CA 7 2024 UT App 11 State v. Forbush record regarding three sets of events, only two of which are relevant to this appeal: (i) the circumstances surrounding B.B.’s partial recantation and what was communicated about it to Pretrial Counsel and (ii) the circumstances surrounding B.B.’s testimony at trial (including the technical difficulties with the audio). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Arreguin-Leon v. Hadco Construction
neutral
1 sentence2020The original papers and exhibits filed in the trial court, __________________________________________________________ 4 Arreguin also argues in his briefing to us that “because Hadco did not make the documents part of the record, Hadco could not show prejudice on appeal.” We are unsure how to interpret this argument, and we are unable to resolve it because Arreguin does not explain the argument further. 8 Cite as: 2020 UT 59 Opinion of the Court . . . the transcript of proceedings, if any, the index prepared by the clerk of the trial court, and the docket sheet, shall constitute the record on | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Hansen
green
2 sentences2010However, we did not reject the remaining portions of the test.- See Hansen, 2002 UT 125 , 1 54-55, 63 P.3d 650 . 2010However, we did not reject the remaining portions of the test.- See Hansen, 2002 UT 125 , 1 54-55, 63 P.3d 650 . | 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.