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 2002–2014 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. Vissergreen2 sentences2006Thus, “[a]lthough the phrase might suggest otherwise, strict compliance with rule [25] does not require that a [Juvenile] court follow a ‘particular script’ or any other ‘specific method of communicating the rights enumerated by rule [25].”’ Cornell, 2005 UT 28 at ¶ 12 , 114 P.3d 569 (quoting Visser, 2000 UT 88 at ¶ 13 , 22 P.3d 1242 ). 2006Thus, “[a]lthough the phrase might suggest otherwise, strict compliance with rule [25] does not require that a [Juvenile] court follow a ‘particular script’ or any other ‘specific method of communicating the rights enumerated by rule [25].”’ Cornell, 2005 UT 28 at ¶ 12 , 114 P.3d 569 (quoting Visser, 2000 UT 88 at ¶ 13 , 22 P.3d 1242 ). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Maguiregreen1 sentence2005To the contrary, “strict compliance can be accomplished by multiple means so long as no requirement of the rule is omitted and so long as the record reflects that the requirement has been fulfilled.” State v. Maguire, 830 P.2d 216, 218 (Utah 1991). | 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. Corwell
green
2 sentences2014For a trial court to comply with the mandates of rule 11(e), it need not “follow a particular script or any other specific method of communicating the rights enumerated by rule 11,” rather, compliance “can be accomplished by multiple means so long as no requirement of the rale is omitted and so long as the record reflects that the requirement has been fulfilled.” See State v. Corwell, 2005 UT 28, ¶ 12 , 114 P.3d 569 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 2014For a trial court to comply with the mandates of rule 11(e), it need not “follow a particular script or any other specific method of communicating the rights enumerated by rule 11,” rather, compliance “can be accomplished by multiple means so long as no requirement of the rale is omitted and so long as the record reflects that the requirement has been fulfilled.” See State v. Corwell, 2005 UT 28, ¶ 12 , 114 P.3d 569 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). | 3 | 2006–2014 |
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.