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 1983–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ravarino v. Pricegreen2 sentences1983E.g., Ravarino v. Price, 123 Utah 559, 575 , 260 P.2d 570, 578 (1953) (part performance must be “clearly referable” to contract). 1983E.g., Ravarino v. Price, 123 Utah 559, 575 , 260 P.2d 570, 578 (1953) (part performance must be “clearly referable” to contract). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Haskell v. Wakefield and Associates
green
1 sentence2024As noted, the third element of claim preclusion is that “the first suit must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits.” Mack v. Utah State Dep’t of Com., 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29 , 221 P.3d 194 (quotation simplified). 20230243-CA 10 2024 UT App 123 Haskell v. Wakefield & Assocs. id. ¶ 11. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
MacK v. Utah State Department of Commerce
green
2 sentences2024As noted, the third element of claim preclusion is that “the first suit must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits.” Mack v. Utah State Dep’t of Com., 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29 , 221 P.3d 194 (quotation simplified). 20230243-CA 10 2024 UT App 123 Haskell v. Wakefield & Assocs. id. ¶ 11. 2024As noted, the third element of claim preclusion is that “the first suit must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits.” Mack v. Utah State Dep’t of Com., 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29 , 221 P.3d 194 (quotation simplified). 20230243-CA 10 2024 UT App 123 Haskell v. Wakefield & Assocs. id. ¶ 11. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Gestational Agreement
green
2 sentences2021And we established specific elements that must be established for a court to exercise jurisdiction over a case that has become moot—a showing that the issue in question “(1) . . . affects the public interest, (2) is likely to recur, and (3) because of the brief time that any one litigant is affected, evades review.” Id. ¶ 32. _____________________________________________________________ 18 See also In re Gestational Agreement, 2019 UT 40, ¶ 12 , 449 P.3d 69 (“‘[J]udicial power’ in Utah has traditionally been limited to the adjudication of disputes, and where no dispute between opposing parties 2021And we established specific elements that must be established for a court to exercise jurisdiction over a case that has become moot—a showing that the issue in question “(1) . . . affects the public interest, (2) is likely to recur, and (3) because of the brief time that any one litigant is affected, evades review.” Id. ¶ 32. _____________________________________________________________ 18 See also In re Gestational Agreement, 2019 UT 40, ¶ 12 , 449 P.3d 69 (“‘[J]udicial power’ in Utah has traditionally been limited to the adjudication of disputes, and where no dispute between opposing parties | 1 | 2021–2021 |
United States v. David Hernandez
green
2 sentences2004Hernandez, 84 F.3d at 935 . ¶12 Here, because Rees had been convicted for the prior act in question, we may assume that the State satisfied the third element of the standard. 2004Hernandez, 84 F.3d at 935 . ¶ 12 Here, because Rees had been convicted for the prior act in question, we may assume that the State satisfied the third element of the standard. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Beaver v. Qwest, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002Accordingly, because the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, we conclude that the extra-contractual claims were never dismissed "on the merits." See, e.g., Beaver County, 2001 UT 81 at ¶ 19 , 34 P.3d 1147 . 163 Therefore, the USAA defendants never established the third element of claim preclusion. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.