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 1 courts 1992–2004 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. Cannongreen2 sentences2004To establish the clearly erroneous standard of review in the step two context, however, Chatwin cited, without analysis, State v. Cannon, 2002 UT App 18 ,- ¶ 5, 41 P.3d 1153 . 2004To establish the clearly erroneous standard of review in the step two context, however, Chatwin cited, without analysis, State v. Cannon, 2002 UT App 18 ,- ¶ 5, 41 P.3d 1153 . | 1 | 2 |
Stewart v. State by and Through Delandgreen1 sentence2003See Stewart v. State, 830 P.2d 306, 309 (Utah Ct.App.1992). ¶ 10 In the instant case, Rees’s petition, submitted to his sentencing court, essentially asserted that his appellate counsel was ineffective and that therefore he has been denied his right to the meaningful appeal of his conviction. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cudegreen2 sentences1992Burns, A Discussion of the New Federal Rules of Evidence, 8 Gonz.L.Rev. 1, 21 (Fall 1972). [2] I note that State v. Cude, 784 P.2d 1197 (Utah 1989), relied upon by the majority, states a deferential review: "This court will not disturb a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence absent a showing of clear error." Id. at 1201 (footnote omitted). 1992Burns, A Discussion of the New Federal Rules of Evidence, 8 Gonz.L.Rev. 1, 21 (Fall 1972). [2] I note that State v. Cude, 784 P.2d 1197 (Utah 1989), relied upon by the majority, states a deferential review: "This court will not disturb a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence absent a showing of clear error." Id. at 1201 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tuttlegreen2 sentences1992This "clear error" line of authority in Cude can be traced directly back to the case of State v. Tuttle, 16 Utah 2d 288 , 399 P.2d 580, 582 (Utah 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 872 , 86 S.Ct. 129 , 15 L.Ed.2d 110 (1965), which states: The practical exigencies of a trial render it imperative that the trial judge have the prerogative of ruling upon questions of admissibility of evidence and upon issues of fact incidental to that purpose. 1992This "clear error" line of authority in Cude can be traced directly back to the case of State v. Tuttle, 16 Utah 2d 288 , 399 P.2d 580, 582 (Utah 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 872 , 86 S.Ct. 129 , 15 L.Ed.2d 110 (1965), which states: The practical exigencies of a trial render it imperative that the trial judge have the prerogative of ruling upon questions of admissibility of evidence and upon issues of fact incidental to that purpose. | 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. Chatwin
green
2 sentences2004Absent a showing of clear error, we will not overturn a trial court’s determination concerning the discriminatory intent embodied in a party’s explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge.” Id. 2003"Absent a showing of clear error, we will not overturn a trial court's determination concerning the discriminatory intent embodied in a party's explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge." State v. Chatwin, 2002 UT App 363, ¶ 5 , 58 P.3d 867 . | 2 | 2003–2004 |
Jackson v. New York
green
2 sentences1992This "clear error" line of authority in Cude can be traced directly back to the case of State v. Tuttle, 16 Utah 2d 288 , 399 P.2d 580, 582 (Utah 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 872 , 86 S.Ct. 129 , 15 L.Ed.2d 110 (1965), which states: The practical exigencies of a trial render it imperative that the trial judge have the prerogative of ruling upon questions of admissibility of evidence and upon issues of fact incidental to that purpose. 1992This "clear error” line of authority in Cude can be traced directly back to the case of State v. Tuttle, 16 Utah 2d 288 , 399 P.2d 580, 582 (Utah 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 872 , 86 S.Ct. 129 , 15 L.Ed.2d 110 (1965), which states: The practical exigencies of a trial render it imperative that the trial judge have the prerogative of ruling upon questions of admissibility of evidence and upon issues of fact incidental .to that purpose. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.