general acceptance test (Utah) · Go Syfert
← Utah issues

general acceptance test in Utah

5 Utah opinions name it 1 courts 1905–2002 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
United States v. Orville E. Stifel, IIgreen
ca6 · 1970 · cited in 2 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980Every useful new development must have its first day in court." United States v. Stifel, supra, at 438. [4] Moreover, admissibility is not governed solely by the general acceptance test, although a showing of general acceptance would generally be sufficient.

1980Every useful new development must have its first day in court.” United States v. Stifel, supra, at 438. 4 Moreover, admissibility is not governed solely by the general acceptance test, although a showing of general acceptance would generally be sufficient.

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Rimmasch green
utah · 1989
2 sentences

2002Rimmasch, 775 P.2d at 396-99 .

2002Rimmasch, 775 P.2d at 396-99 .

21997–2002
Frye v. United States red
cadc · 1923
2 sentences

2002Consequently, jurisprudential history reveals a consistent attempt to ensure the reliability and helpfulness of evidence while allowing a maximum of relevant information to flow to the finder of fact. ¶ 57 In Rimmasch , we rejected exclusive use of the general acceptance test set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923).

2002Consequently, jurisprudential history reveals a consistent attempt to ensure the reliability and helpfulness of evidence while allowing a maximum of relevant information to flow to the finder of fact. ¶ 57 In Rimmasch , we rejected exclusive use of the general acceptance test set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923).

12002–2002
People v. Hite green
utah · 1893
1 sentence

1905These reasons have led to the general acceptance of the rule that an accused person taking the stand as a witness may be impeached precisely like any other witness, i. e., by reputation as evidence of character, by cross-examination to character, by conviction of crime and the like.” In People v. Hite, 8 Utah 461 , 33 Pac. 254 , where the cross-examination took a wide range, Mr. Chief Justice Zane, speaking for the court, said: “In his cross-examination the prosecuting attorney went still further back, and his inquiry descends still further into particulars.

11905–1905

Where else courts name it

IL 49 (1994–2026) NJ 18 (1980–2023) MD 13 (1982–2023) MS 9 (2001–2016) MA 9 (1979–2026) KS 7 (1997–2019) CA 6 (1928–2026) MT 6 (1983–2026) UT 5 (1905–2002) TX 5 (1992–2015) AZ 5 (1982–2014) TN 4 (1999–2015) NY 4 (1986–2005) FL 4 (1985–2005) CO 3 (1991–2005) NV 3 (1922–2010) AK 3 (1999–2019) OK 2 (1957–1995) DC 2 (2003–2018) PA 2 (2002–2013) WY 2 (2025–2025) NC 2 (2004–2015) NE 2 (1996–1998)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check