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.
29 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thurston v. Box Elder Countygreen2 sentences2025While not cited to by either party, there is a developed body of law in federal courts prescribing how to evaluate alleged violations of the mandate rule, by looking first at whether an appellate court’s directives were general or limited, which then impacts whether the trial court can approach additional proceedings de novo or within prescribed limits.40 We are not invited to, nor do we need to, consider or adopt that body of law today. ¶26 Our existing precedent about reversals without remand instructions, coupled with the unique nature of restitution proceedings, resolves this appeal on nar 2025Without it, considerable inefficiencies would result if parties were free to relitigate after remand issues decided in an earlier ruling of this court.” (cleaned up)); Thurston v. Box Elder Cnty., 892 P.2d 1034, 1038 (Utah 1995) (“[The mandate rule] serves the dual purpose of protecting against the reargument of settled issues and of assuring adherence of lower courts to the decisions of higher courts.”). 33 See 2016 UT App 177 , ¶¶ 37–39, 380 P.3d 60 . 34 Id. ¶ 39. 35 Id. ¶¶ 8, 37. 36 Id. ¶ 37–41; IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 34 (“There are three exceptional circumstances in which the law | 8 | 8 |
IHC Health Services, Inc. v. D & K MANAGEMENT, INC.green2 sentences2025They are used to describe the binding effect of a decision in a prior case on a second case.” (cleaned up)). 28 IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 26 . 29 Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 44 , 445 P.3d 395 ; IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 27 . 30 IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 28 . 9 STATE v. BLAKE Opinion of the Court although the mandate rule is not inflexible.31 The purpose of the rule is to protect against reargument of settled issues and to assure adherence of the trial courts to appellate decisions.32 ¶23 Blake relies on the court of appeals’ decision in State v. MacNeill to assert that th 2025They are used to describe the binding effect of a decision in a prior case on a second case.” (cleaned up)). 28 IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 26 . 29 Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 44 , 445 P.3d 395 ; IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 27 . 30 IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 28 . 9 STATE v. BLAKE Opinion of the Court although the mandate rule is not inflexible.31 The purpose of the rule is to protect against reargument of settled issues and to assure adherence of the trial courts to appellate decisions.32 ¶23 Blake relies on the court of appeals’ decision in State v. MacNeill to assert that th | 4 | 11 |
Herriman Irrigation Co. v. Keelgreen2 sentences2016When a trial court judge reviews another trial court judge‘s ruling, the doctrine prevents the second judge from overruling the first.23 There is an exception to this rule, however, that permits the _____________________________________________________________ 19 Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of Utah, 2001 UT 75, ¶ 9 , 31 P.3d 543 . 20 See Utah Dep’t of Transp. v. Ivers, 2009 UT 56, ¶ 12 , 218 P.3d 583 (―The mandate rule ‗dictates that pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in a case become the law of the case and must be followed in subsequent proceedings of that case.‘‖ (emphasi 2016R 21 , Herriman Irrigation Co. v. Keel, 25 Utah 96 , 69 P. 719, 720 (1902) (refusing to apply the law of the case doctrine when in an earlier appeal "the judgment [was] reversed and remanded for a new trial because material findings of fact [were] not supported by the proof, and when at the second trial additional evidence [was] offered and admitted"). 22 . | 2 | 2 |
Utah Department of Transportation v. Iversgreen2 sentences2025They are used to describe the binding effect of a decision in a prior case on a second case.” (cleaned up)). 28 IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 26 . 29 Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 44 , 445 P.3d 395 ; IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 27 . 30 IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 28 . 9 STATE v. BLAKE Opinion of the Court although the mandate rule is not inflexible.31 The purpose of the rule is to protect against reargument of settled issues and to assure adherence of the trial courts to appellate decisions.32 ¶23 Blake relies on the court of appeals’ decision in State v. MacNeill to assert that th 2025They are used to describe the binding effect of a decision in a prior case on a second case.” (cleaned up)). 28 IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 26 . 29 Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 44 , 445 P.3d 395 ; IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 27 . 30 IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 28 . 9 STATE v. BLAKE Opinion of the Court although the mandate rule is not inflexible.31 The purpose of the rule is to protect against reargument of settled issues and to assure adherence of the trial courts to appellate decisions.32 ¶23 Blake relies on the court of appeals’ decision in State v. MacNeill to assert that th | 1 | 10 |
Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of Utahgreen2 sentences2025They are used to describe the binding effect of a decision in a prior case on a second case.” (cleaned up)). 28 IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 26 . 29 Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 44 , 445 P.3d 395 ; IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 27 . 30 IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 28 . 9 STATE v. BLAKE Opinion of the Court although the mandate rule is not inflexible.31 The purpose of the rule is to protect against reargument of settled issues and to assure adherence of the trial courts to appellate decisions.32 ¶23 Blake relies on the court of appeals’ decision in State v. MacNeill to assert that th 2025They are used to describe the binding effect of a decision in a prior case on a second case.” (cleaned up)). 28 IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 26 . 29 Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 44 , 445 P.3d 395 ; IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 27 . 30 IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 28 . 9 STATE v. BLAKE Opinion of the Court although the mandate rule is not inflexible.31 The purpose of the rule is to protect against reargument of settled issues and to assure adherence of the trial courts to appellate decisions.32 ¶23 Blake relies on the court of appeals’ decision in State v. MacNeill to assert that th | 1 | 7 |
Utah State Bar v. Rasmussengreen1 sentence2025While that umbrella covers distinct types of legal problems, each with a separate type of analysis, the doctrine generally provides that, prior to an appeal, parties are bound by the decisions of the trial court made within that case, although the trial court may have discretion to change those decisions until it enters its final judgment.29 ¶22 The “mandate rule,” on the other hand, applies after a case has been appealed.30 Once an appellate court issues its decision, both the appellate court’s pronouncements on legal issues and the prior decisions of the trial court generally become mandator | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ogdengreen2 sentences2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re 2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re | 1 | 1 |
State v. Murraygreen2 sentences2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re 2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re | 1 | 1 |
In re Discipline of Rasmussengreen1 sentence2025While that umbrella covers distinct types of legal problems, each with a separate type of analysis, the doctrine generally provides that, prior to an appeal, parties are bound by the decisions of the trial court made within that case, although the trial court may have discretion to change those decisions until it enters its final judgment.29 ¶22 The “mandate rule,” on the other hand, applies after a case has been appealed.30 Once an appellate court issues its decision, both the appellate court’s pronouncements on legal issues and the prior decisions of the trial court generally become mandator | 1 | 1 |
Brady v. Parkgreen2 sentences2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re 2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re | 1 | 1 |
State v. Weeksgreen2 sentences2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re 2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pereagreen2 sentences2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re 2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Olivergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. MacNeillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugengreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. O'NEILgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rawlings v. Rawlingsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| AMS Salt Industries, Inc. v. Magnesium Corp. of Americagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Peak Alarm Co. v. Salt Lake City Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Hammer v. Gibbons and Reed Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Mooregreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Thomasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jordan v. Jordangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gillmor v. Wrightgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bair v. Axiom Design, L.L.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| Municipal Building Authority v. Lowdergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Petty Et Ux. v. Clarkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mid-America Pipeline Co. v. Four-Four, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015"This aspect of [the] law of the case doctrine is frequently referred to as the mandate rule." Id. 2015"Thus, the decisions of an appellate court become the law of the case and cannot be reconsidered on remand." Mid-America Pipeline Co., 2009 UT 43, ¶ 13 , 216 P.3d 352 . 131 However, the mandate rule is subject to an exception "when there has been an intervening change of controlling authority." Gildea, 2001 UT 75, ¶ 9 , 31 P.3d 543 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 3 | 2015–2018 |
State v. MacNeill
green
2 sentences2025Without it, considerable inefficiencies would result if parties were free to relitigate after remand issues decided in an earlier ruling of this court.” (cleaned up)); Thurston v. Box Elder Cnty., 892 P.2d 1034, 1038 (Utah 1995) (“[The mandate rule] serves the dual purpose of protecting against the reargument of settled issues and of assuring adherence of lower courts to the decisions of higher courts.”). 33 See 2016 UT App 177 , ¶¶ 37–39, 380 P.3d 60 . 34 Id. ¶ 39. 35 Id. ¶¶ 8, 37. 36 Id. ¶ 37–41; IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 34 (“There are three exceptional circumstances in which the law 2025Without it, considerable inefficiencies would result if parties were free to relitigate after remand issues decided in an earlier ruling of this court.” (cleaned up)); Thurston v. Box Elder Cnty., 892 P.2d 1034, 1038 (Utah 1995) (“[The mandate rule] serves the dual purpose of protecting against the reargument of settled issues and of assuring adherence of lower courts to the decisions of higher courts.”). 33 See 2016 UT App 177 , ¶¶ 37–39, 380 P.3d 60 . 34 Id. ¶ 39. 35 Id. ¶¶ 8, 37. 36 Id. ¶ 37–41; IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 34 (“There are three exceptional circumstances in which the law | 2 | 2019–2025 |
Wasatch County v. Okelberry
neutral
2 sentences2024“Under the mandate rule, issues resolved by an appellate court bind the trial court on remand, and generally bind this court should the case return on appeal after remand.” Wasatch County v. Okelberry, 2015 UT App 192, ¶ 30 , 357 P.3d 586 , (cleaned up), cert. denied, 364 P.3d 48 (Utah 2015). 2024“Under the mandate rule, issues resolved by an appellate court bind the trial court on remand, and generally bind this court should the case return on appeal after remand.” Wasatch County v. Okelberry, 2015 UT App 192, ¶ 30 , 357 P.3d 586 , (cleaned up), cert. denied, 364 P.3d 48 (Utah 2015). | 2 | 2021–2024 |
Fish v. Fish
green
2 sentences2020“We review the application of the mandate rule for correctness.” Fish v. Fish, 2016 UT App 125, ¶ 10 , 379 P.3d 890 . 3 ANALYSIS I. 2017See, e.g., Gildea v. Guardian Title Co., 2001 UT 75, ¶ 9 , 31 P.3d 543 (pursuant to the mandate rule, “issues resolved by this court on appeal bind the [district] court on remand”); Fish v. Fish, 2016 UT App 125, ¶ 10 , 379 P.3d 882 (noting that the mandate rule of the law-of-the-case doctrine prevents a district court from reconsidering *649 an issue once it has been raised and actually resolved on appeal). ¶18 We vacate the district court’s ruling and remand the case for further proceedings as appropriate. 1 . | 2 | 2017–2020 |
Francis v. State, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
green
2 sentences2016Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of Utah 2001 UT 75, ¶ 9 , 31 P.3d 543 . 20 , See Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Ivers, 2009 UT 56, ¶ 12 , 218 P.3d 583 ('The mandate rule 'dictates that pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in a case become the law of the case and must be followed in subsequent proceedings of that case.'" (emphasis added) (citation omitted)); Francis v. State, Utah Div. of Wildlife Res., 2013 UT 65, ¶ 21 , 321 P.3d 1089 ("[A] decision of an appellate court constitutes the law of the case only as to such questions of law as were involved in the judgment. . .." (first alter 2016Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of Utah 2001 UT 75, ¶ 9 , 31 P.3d 543 . 20 , See Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Ivers, 2009 UT 56, ¶ 12 , 218 P.3d 583 ('The mandate rule 'dictates that pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in a case become the law of the case and must be followed in subsequent proceedings of that case.'" (emphasis added) (citation omitted)); Francis v. State, Utah Div. of Wildlife Res., 2013 UT 65, ¶ 21 , 321 P.3d 1089 ("[A] decision of an appellate court constitutes the law of the case only as to such questions of law as were involved in the judgment. . .." (first alter | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Mooers and Becker
green
2 sentences2025Restitution orders are unique components of criminal sentencing.17 The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the U.S. and Utah Constitutions protect defendants from multiple prosecutions or sentences for the same offense, and Utah Code sections 76-1-402 and -403 can extend those protections for different offenses during the same criminal episode.18 Where insufficient evidence is the basis for a reversal of a conviction, the Double Jeopardy Clauses might be a legal barrier prohibiting a second trial based on evidence the prosecutor could have presented at the first trial.19 But where the insufficiency of 2025Restitution orders are unique components of criminal sentencing.17 The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the U.S. and Utah Constitutions protect defendants from multiple prosecutions or sentences for the same offense, and Utah Code sections 76-1-402 and -403 can extend those protections for different offenses during the same criminal episode.18 Where insufficient evidence is the basis for a reversal of a conviction, the Double Jeopardy Clauses might be a legal barrier prohibiting a second trial based on evidence the prosecutor could have presented at the first trial.19 But where the insufficiency of | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Chadwick
green
2 sentences2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re 2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bankers Insurance Comp
green
1 sentence2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Levin
green
2 sentences2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re 2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Blake
green
2 sentences2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re 2025Without it, considerable inefficiencies would result if parties were free to relitigate after remand issues decided in an earlier ruling of this court.” (cleaned up)); Thurston v. Box Elder Cnty., 892 P.2d 1034, 1038 (Utah 1995) (“[The mandate rule] serves the dual purpose of protecting against the reargument of settled issues and of assuring adherence of lower courts to the decisions of higher courts.”). 33 See 2016 UT App 177 , ¶¶ 37–39, 380 P.3d 60 . 34 Id. ¶ 39. 35 Id. ¶¶ 8, 37. 36 Id. ¶ 37–41; IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 34 (“There are three exceptional circumstances in which the law | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Lovell
green
2 sentences2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re 2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Laycock
green
2 sentences2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re 2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Salt Lake City v. Mark C. Haik
green
1 sentence2025P. 43. 8 Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14 , ¶ 7, 393 P.3d 285 (reviewing whether res judicata barred a civil action for correctness); Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 30 , 445 P.3d 395 (reviewing a district court’s holdings regarding the mandate rule for correctness); State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 (reviewing an issue of timeliness for correctness). 9 State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 25 , 416 P.3d 1132 ; State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 10 , 214 P.3d 104 . 10 Compare State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 , ¶¶ 20–24, 214 P.3d 104 (evaluating legal questions about language used in the re | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Hewitt v. General Tire and Rubber Company green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Morningside Developers, LLC v. Copper Hills Custom Homes, LLC
neutral
2 sentences2024For the first time in its reply brief, Copper Hills argues that the mandate rule requires us to read our prior opinion as holding that the Savings Statute applies to the 2015 lawsuit, otherwise the distinction between a dismissal with or without prejudice “would not matter” and the prior opinion would be “merely advisory.” See Morningside Devs., LLC v. Copper Hills Custom Homes, LLC, 2015 UT App 99, ¶ 12 , 348 P.3d 726 (holding Copper Hills’ first enforcement action was properly dismissed without prejudice). 2024For the first time in its reply brief, Copper Hills argues that the mandate rule requires us to read our prior opinion as holding that the Savings Statute applies to the 2015 lawsuit, otherwise the distinction between a dismissal with or without prejudice “would not matter” and the prior opinion would be “merely advisory.” See Morningside Devs., LLC v. Copper Hills Custom Homes, LLC, 2015 UT App 99, ¶ 12 , 348 P.3d 726 (holding Copper Hills’ first enforcement action was properly dismissed without prejudice). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2024There are any number of reasons to reject this argument: the issue is not preserved, see State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 15 , 416 P.3d 443 ; the argument is raised for the first time in the reply brief, see State v. Lisenbee, 2022 UT App 19 , ¶ 18 n.5, 505 P.3d 523 ; and the issue of whether Copper Hills could file a second action was not discussed in our prior opinion, leaving that question undecided for purposes of the mandate rule, see Department of Transp. v. Ivers, 2009 UT 56, ¶ 12 , 218 P.3d 583 . 20220873-CA 12 2024 UT App 110 2024There are any number of reasons to reject this argument: the issue is not preserved, see State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 15 , 416 P.3d 443 ; the argument is raised for the first time in the reply brief, see State v. Lisenbee, 2022 UT App 19 , ¶ 18 n.5, 505 P.3d 523 ; and the issue of whether Copper Hills could file a second action was not discussed in our prior opinion, leaving that question undecided for purposes of the mandate rule, see Department of Transp. v. Ivers, 2009 UT 56, ¶ 12 , 218 P.3d 583 . 20220873-CA 12 2024 UT App 110 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Lisenbee
green
2 sentences2024There are any number of reasons to reject this argument: the issue is not preserved, see State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 15 , 416 P.3d 443 ; the argument is raised for the first time in the reply brief, see State v. Lisenbee, 2022 UT App 19 , ¶ 18 n.5, 505 P.3d 523 ; and the issue of whether Copper Hills could file a second action was not discussed in our prior opinion, leaving that question undecided for purposes of the mandate rule, see Department of Transp. v. Ivers, 2009 UT 56, ¶ 12 , 218 P.3d 583 . 20220873-CA 12 2024 UT App 110 2024There are any number of reasons to reject this argument: the issue is not preserved, see State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 15 , 416 P.3d 443 ; the argument is raised for the first time in the reply brief, see State v. Lisenbee, 2022 UT App 19 , ¶ 18 n.5, 505 P.3d 523 ; and the issue of whether Copper Hills could file a second action was not discussed in our prior opinion, leaving that question undecided for purposes of the mandate rule, see Department of Transp. v. Ivers, 2009 UT 56, ¶ 12 , 218 P.3d 583 . 20220873-CA 12 2024 UT App 110 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Copper Hills Custom Homes v. Griffin
green
2 sentences2024There are any number of reasons to reject this argument: the issue is not preserved, see State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 15 , 416 P.3d 443 ; the argument is raised for the first time in the reply brief, see State v. Lisenbee, 2022 UT App 19 , ¶ 18 n.5, 505 P.3d 523 ; and the issue of whether Copper Hills could file a second action was not discussed in our prior opinion, leaving that question undecided for purposes of the mandate rule, see Department of Transp. v. Ivers, 2009 UT 56, ¶ 12 , 218 P.3d 583 . 20220873-CA 12 2024 UT App 110 2024There are any number of reasons to reject this argument: the issue is not preserved, see State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 15 , 416 P.3d 443 ; the argument is raised for the first time in the reply brief, see State v. Lisenbee, 2022 UT App 19 , ¶ 18 n.5, 505 P.3d 523 ; and the issue of whether Copper Hills could file a second action was not discussed in our prior opinion, leaving that question undecided for purposes of the mandate rule, see Department of Transp. v. Ivers, 2009 UT 56, ¶ 12 , 218 P.3d 583 . 20220873-CA 12 2024 UT App 110 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Smith v. Volkswagen Southtowne
green
1 sentence2024We affirm. 20220957-CA 10 2024 UT App 33 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Fisher v. Davidhizar green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Steffensen v. Office of Prof'l Conduct (In Re Steffensen) green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Discipline of Brian Steffensen green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Taft v. Taft green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Featherston green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Santobello v. New York green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| NPEC LLC v. Miller neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Lewis v. Nelson green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Barnett v. Adams green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Utah Department of Transportation v. Boggess-Draper Co. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Porter v. EB Golf LLC green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Navajo Nation v. State green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Manzanares v. Byington green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Red Flame, Inc. v. Martinez green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Clopten green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| WASATCH COUNTY v. Okelberry neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch Partnership green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Goebel v. Salt Lake City Southern Railroad green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Carlton v. Brown green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Sears v. Ogden City green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.