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 2014–2024 2 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. Orsellogreen2 sentences2014When assessing these and other relevant factors, however, courts must avoid succumbing to a purely subjective analysis, which is inconsistent with the objective standard’s intent to “protect[] against criminalizing conduct that only an unreasonably sensitive or paranoid victim would find harassing” so as to reduce the risk of “a truly innocent defendant falling within the ambit of [a stalking statute].” State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70, 79 (Minn. 1996) (Stringer, J., dissenting). 6 H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 815 A.2d 405, 417 (N.J. 2003). 7 State v. Hinchliffe, 987 A.2d 988, 997 (Vt. 2009). 8 Cesare v. 2014When assessing these and other relevant factors, however, courts must avoid succumbing to a purely subjective analysis, which is inconsistent with the objective standard’s intent to “protect[ ] against criminalizing conduct that only an unreasonably sensitive or paranoid victim would find harassing” *736 so as to reduce the risk of “a truly innocent defendant falling within the ambit of [a stalking statute].” State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70, 79 (Minn.1996) (Stringer, J., dissenting). ¶ 28 In considering Robert’s request for an injunction, the district court repeatedly focused on the fact that | 2 | 2 |
Baird v. Bairdgreen2 sentences2024“When assessing these and other relevant factors, however, courts must avoid succumbing to a purely subjective analysis, which is inconsistent with the objective standard’s intent to protect against criminalizing conduct that only an unreasonably sensitive or paranoid victim would find harassing.” Baird v. Baird, 2014 UT 8, ¶ 27 , 322 P.3d 728 (cleaned up). ¶22 Here, the district court appropriately analyzed Thomas’s conduct in light of the specific facts and circumstances at hand. 2024“When assessing these and other relevant factors, however, courts must avoid succumbing to a purely subjective analysis, which is inconsistent with the objective standard’s intent to protect against criminalizing conduct that only an unreasonably sensitive or paranoid victim would find harassing.” Baird v. Baird, 2014 UT 8, ¶ 27 , 322 P.3d 728 (cleaned up). ¶22 Here, the district court appropriately analyzed Thomas’s conduct in light of the specific facts and circumstances at hand. | 1 | 3 |
Cesare v. Cesaregreen1 sentence2014When assessing these and other relevant factors, however, courts must avoid succumbing to a purely subjective analysis, which is inconsistent with the objective standard’s intent to “protect[] against criminalizing conduct that only an unreasonably sensitive or paranoid victim would find harassing” so as to reduce the risk of “a truly innocent defendant falling within the ambit of [a stalking statute].” State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70, 79 (Minn. 1996) (Stringer, J., dissenting). 6 H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 815 A.2d 405, 417 (N.J. 2003). 7 State v. Hinchliffe, 987 A.2d 988, 997 (Vt. 2009). 8 Cesare v. | 1 | 1 |
Hes v. Jcsgreen1 sentence2014When assessing these and other relevant factors, however, courts must avoid succumbing to a purely subjective analysis, which is inconsistent with the objective standard’s intent to “protect[] against criminalizing conduct that only an unreasonably sensitive or paranoid victim would find harassing” so as to reduce the risk of “a truly innocent defendant falling within the ambit of [a stalking statute].” State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70, 79 (Minn. 1996) (Stringer, J., dissenting). 6 H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 815 A.2d 405, 417 (N.J. 2003). 7 State v. Hinchliffe, 987 A.2d 988, 997 (Vt. 2009). 8 Cesare v. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hinchliffegreen1 sentence2014When assessing these and other relevant factors, however, courts must avoid succumbing to a purely subjective analysis, which is inconsistent with the objective standard’s intent to “protect[] against criminalizing conduct that only an unreasonably sensitive or paranoid victim would find harassing” so as to reduce the risk of “a truly innocent defendant falling within the ambit of [a stalking statute].” State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70, 79 (Minn. 1996) (Stringer, J., dissenting). 6 H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 815 A.2d 405, 417 (N.J. 2003). 7 State v. Hinchliffe, 987 A.2d 988, 997 (Vt. 2009). 8 Cesare v. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Deem
green
1 sentence2023Still, our supreme court has cautioned that “when assessing these and other relevant factors, . . . courts must avoid succumbing to a purely subjective analysis, which is inconsistent with the objective standard’s intent to protect against criminalizing conduct that only an unreasonably sensitive or (continued…) 20210558-CA 14 2023 UT App 48 Anderson v. Deem ¶30 Here, the district court’s analysis was legally flawed because it approached the matter using an insular rather than a holistic framework to arrive at its conclusion that Deem’s course of conduct was not of such a type as to cause fear | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Roper v. Shovan
neutral
2 sentences2014When assessing these and other relevant factors, however, courts must avoid succumbing to a purely subjective analysis, which is inconsistent with the objective standard’s intent to “protect[] against criminalizing conduct that only an unreasonably sensitive or paranoid victim would find harassing” so as to reduce the risk of “a truly innocent defendant falling within the ambit of [a stalking statute].” State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70, 79 (Minn. 1996) (Stringer, J., dissenting). 6 H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 815 A.2d 405, 417 (N.J. 2003). 7 State v. Hinchliffe, 987 A.2d 988, 997 (Vt. 2009). 8 Cesare v. 2014When assessing these and other relevant factors, however, courts must avoid succumbing to a purely subjective analysis, which is inconsistent with the objective standard’s intent to “protect[] against criminalizing conduct that only an unreasonably sensitive or paranoid victim would find harassing” so as to reduce the risk of “a truly innocent defendant falling within the ambit of [a stalking statute].” State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70, 79 (Minn. 1996) (Stringer, J., dissenting). 6 H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 815 A.2d 405, 417 (N.J. 2003). 7 State v. Hinchliffe, 987 A.2d 988, 997 (Vt. 2009). 8 Cesare v. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Coombs v. Dietrich
green
2 sentences2014When assessing these and other relevant factors, however, courts must avoid succumbing to a purely subjective analysis, which is inconsistent with the objective standard’s intent to “protect[] against criminalizing conduct that only an unreasonably sensitive or paranoid victim would find harassing” so as to reduce the risk of “a truly innocent defendant falling within the ambit of [a stalking statute].” State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70, 79 (Minn. 1996) (Stringer, J., dissenting). 6 H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 815 A.2d 405, 417 (N.J. 2003). 7 State v. Hinchliffe, 987 A.2d 988, 997 (Vt. 2009). 8 Cesare v. 2014When assessing these and other relevant factors, however, courts must avoid succumbing to a purely subjective analysis, which is inconsistent with the objective standard’s intent to “protect[] against criminalizing conduct that only an unreasonably sensitive or paranoid victim would find harassing” so as to reduce the risk of “a truly innocent defendant falling within the ambit of [a stalking statute].” State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70, 79 (Minn. 1996) (Stringer, J., dissenting). 6 H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 815 A.2d 405, 417 (N.J. 2003). 7 State v. Hinchliffe, 987 A.2d 988, 997 (Vt. 2009). 8 Cesare v. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.