24 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1904–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jenkins v. Swangreen2 sentences2018The first step of this inquiry is identical to "the traditional criteria of the plaintiff's personal stake in the controversy." Id. at 1150 . 2013See Mace, 921 P.2d at 1379 . ¶22 “The first step of the inquiry is directed to ascertaining the complainant’s personal stake in the controversy” and considers 20120036‐CA 12 2013 UT App 7 In re C.B. whether there is “‘some causal relationship alleged between the injury to the [complainant], the governmental actions and the relief requested.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Jenkins, 675 P.2d at 1150 ). | 2 | 3 |
State v. MacEgreen2 sentences2013See Mace, 921 P.2d at 1379 . ¶ 22 "The first step of the inquiry is directed to ascertaining the complainant's personal stake in the controversy" and considers whether there is "'some causal relationship alleged between the injury to the [complainant], the governmental actions and the relief requested'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Jenkins 675 P.2d at 1150 ). 2013See Mace, 921 P.2d at 1379 . ¶22 “The first step of the inquiry is directed to ascertaining the complainant’s personal stake in the controversy” and considers 20120036‐CA 12 2013 UT App 7 In re C.B. whether there is “‘some causal relationship alleged between the injury to the [complainant], the governmental actions and the relief requested.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Jenkins, 675 P.2d at 1150 ). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Killpackgreen2 sentences2020“Such evidence is admissible if it (1) is relevant to, (2) a proper, non-character purpose, and (3) does not pose a danger for unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs its probative value.” State v. Killpack, 2008 UT 49, ¶ 45 , 191 P.3d 17 (quotation simplified); see also Lucero, 2014 UT 15, ¶ 37 (instructing “trial courts to engage in a three-part analysis under rules 404(b), 402, and 403”). ¶16 The first step in this analysis requires that the evidence be relevant, as that term is used in rules 401 and 402. 2020“Such evidence is admissible if it (1) is relevant to, (2) a proper, non-character purpose, and (3) does not pose a danger for unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs its probative value.” State v. Killpack, 2008 UT 49, ¶ 45 , 191 P.3d 17 (quotation simplified); see also Lucero, 2014 UT 15, ¶ 37 (instructing “trial courts to engage in a three-part analysis under rules 404(b), 402, and 403”). ¶16 The first step in this analysis requires that the evidence be relevant, as that term is used in rules 401 and 402. | 1 | 2 |
Ragsdale v. Fishlergreen1 sentence2025And the two steps of the stalking analysis are addressed serially, meaning that if there is no course of conduct, the court should end its analysis and deny the request for a civil stalking injunction. ¶31 If the court finds that an individual engaged in a course of conduct, the court then moves to the second step of the stalking analysis, where it considers “whether the conduct at issue would cause emotional distress or fear to a reasonable person in the petitioner’s circumstances.” Staszkiewicz v. Thomas, 2024 UT App 183, ¶ 17 , 562 P.3d 723 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 583 P.3d 260 (Utah 202 | 1 | 1 |
Ream v. Reamgreen1 sentence2025And the two steps of the stalking analysis are addressed serially, meaning that if there is no course of conduct, the court should end its analysis and deny the request for a civil stalking injunction. ¶31 If the court finds that an individual engaged in a course of conduct, the court then moves to the second step of the stalking analysis, where it considers “whether the conduct at issue would cause emotional distress or fear to a reasonable person in the petitioner’s circumstances.” Staszkiewicz v. Thomas, 2024 UT App 183, ¶ 17 , 562 P.3d 723 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 583 P.3d 260 (Utah 202 | 1 | 1 |
Maryland v. Shatzergreen1 sentence2021But “the freedom-of-movement test identifies only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Miranda custody.” Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 112 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
Stansbury v. Californiagreen1 sentence2021In making this determination, a court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, “but the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322 (1994) (per curiam) (cleaned up). ¶45 Focusing on the first step of this inquiry, Goddard argues that he was in custody because “a reasonable person in Goddard’s position would not have felt free to leave.” This statement is true enough, as a suspect “is not free to leave . . . during a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lucerogreen1 sentence2020“Such evidence is admissible if it (1) is relevant to, (2) a proper, non-character purpose, and (3) does not pose a danger for unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs its probative value.” State v. Killpack, 2008 UT 49, ¶ 45 , 191 P.3d 17 (quotation simplified); see also Lucero, 2014 UT 15, ¶ 37 (instructing “trial courts to engage in a three-part analysis under rules 404(b), 402, and 403”). ¶16 The first step in this analysis requires that the evidence be relevant, as that term is used in rules 401 and 402. | 1 | 1 |
In re C.B. (M.B. v. State)green2 sentences2013See Mace, 921 P.2d at 1379 . ¶22 “The first step of the inquiry is directed to ascertaining the complainant’s personal stake in the controversy” and considers 20120036‐CA 12 2013 UT App 7 In re C.B. whether there is “‘some causal relationship alleged between the injury to the [complainant], the governmental actions and the relief requested.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Jenkins, 675 P.2d at 1150 ). 2013See Mace, 921 P.2d at 1379 . ¶22 “The first step of the inquiry is directed to ascertaining the complainant’s personal stake in the controversy” and considers 20120036‐CA 12 2013 UT App 7 In re C.B. whether there is “‘some causal relationship alleged between the injury to the [complainant], the governmental actions and the relief requested.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Jenkins, 675 P.2d at 1150 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rohlettergreen2 sentences2011In State v. Rohletter, 108 Utah 452 , 160 P.2d 963 (1945), the defendant was found guilty of the crime of carnal knowledge. 2 See id. at 964. 2011In State v. Rohletter, 108 Utah 452 , 160 P.2d 963 (1945), the defendant was found guilty of the crime of carnal knowledge. 2 See id. at 964. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gulbransengreen2 sentences2008See, eg., State v. Gulbransen, 2005 UT 7, ¶ 34 , 106 P.3d 734 . 2008See, eg., State v. Gulbransen, 2005 UT 7, ¶ 34 , 106 P.3d 734 . | 1 | 1 |
| Warford v. Lexington Herald-Leader Co.green | 1 | 1 |
Bowman v. Hellergreen2 sentences2005Co. v. ABC, Inc., 98 F.3d 351, 363 (8th Cir.1996) ("[W]e must first identify the particular public controversy giving rise to the defamatory speech.”); Foretich v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 37 F.3d 1541, 1553 (4th Cir.1994) ("First, was there a particular 'public controversy' that gave rise to the alleged defamation?”); Lerman, 745 F.2d at 137 ("The difficult question is whether Ms. Lerman injected herself into a 'public controversy’ related to the offending publication.”); Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1296 ("As the first step in its inquiry, the court must isolate the public controversy.”); Warford 2005Co. v. ABC, Inc., 98 F.3d 351, 363 (8th Cir.1996) ("[W]e must first identify the particular public controversy giving rise to the defamatory speech.”); Foretich v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 37 F.3d 1541, 1553 (4th Cir.1994) ("First, was there a particular 'public controversy' that gave rise to the alleged defamation?”); Lerman, 745 F.2d at 137 ("The difficult question is whether Ms. Lerman injected herself into a 'public controversy’ related to the offending publication.”); Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1296 ("As the first step in its inquiry, the court must isolate the public controversy.”); Warford | 1 | 1 |
| Foretich v. Capital Cities/Abc, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
Lundell Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.green1 sentence2005Co. v. ABC, Inc., 98 F.3d 351, 363 (8th Cir.1996) ("[W]e must first identify the particular public controversy giving rise to the defamatory speech.”); Foretich v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 37 F.3d 1541, 1553 (4th Cir.1994) ("First, was there a particular 'public controversy' that gave rise to the alleged defamation?”); Lerman, 745 F.2d at 137 ("The difficult question is whether Ms. Lerman injected herself into a 'public controversy’ related to the offending publication.”); Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1296 ("As the first step in its inquiry, the court must isolate the public controversy.”); Warford | 1 | 1 |
Eric Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, Incgreen2 sentences2005Co. v. ABC, Inc., 98 F.3d 351, 363 (8th Cir.1996) ("[W]e must first identify the particular public controversy giving rise to the defamatory speech.”); Foretich v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 37 F.3d 1541, 1553 (4th Cir.1994) ("First, was there a particular 'public controversy' that gave rise to the alleged defamation?”); Lerman, 745 F.2d at 137 ("The difficult question is whether Ms. Lerman injected herself into a 'public controversy’ related to the offending publication.”); Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1296 ("As the first step in its inquiry, the court must isolate the public controversy.”); Warford 2005See also Foretich, 37 F.3d at 1553 (requiring that the plaintiff have "voluntarily assumed a role of special prominence in the public controversy” and have "sought to influence the resolution or outcome of the controversy”); Lerman, 745 F.2d at 136-37 (requiring that the plaintiff have “successfully invited public attention to his views in an effort to influence other[s] prior to the incident that is the subject of litigation” and "assumed a position of prominence in the public controversy”); Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297 (requiring that the plaintiff have "purposely tr[ied] to influence the outc | 1 | 1 |
| Jackie Collins Lerman v. Flynt Distributing Co., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Chatwingreen | 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. Lolani
green
2 sentences2026State v. Lolani, 2025 UT App 138, ¶ 18 , 581 P.3d 1024 (cleaned up). 2026State v. Lolani, 2025 UT App 138, ¶ 18 , 581 P.3d 1024 (cleaned up). | 3 | 2026–2026 |
Howes v. Fields
green
2 sentences2021“Determining whether an individual’s freedom of movement was curtailed, however, is simply the first step in the analysis, not the last.” Howes, 565 U.S. at 509 . 2015"Determining whether an individual's freedom of movement was - curtailed, however, is simply the first step in the analysis, not the last." Id. | 2 | 2015–2021 |
State v. Whitman
green
1 sentence2026We ultimately applied only the first step of the analysis, concluding that “there was no apparent reason for declaring a mistrial” and thus “the jury was unnecessarily discharged.” Id. at 697–98. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Seach
green
2 sentences2025This determination hinges on the following questions: (1) did the error in the jury instructions create the possibility that the jury convicted the defendant based on factual findings that would not have led to conviction had the instructions been correct? and, (2) if so, is there a reasonable probability that at least one juror based its verdict on those factual findings?” State v. Seach, 2021 UT App 22, ¶ 24 , 483 P.3d 1265 (cleaned up). ¶18 The first step in this analysis requires that we “identify the theoretical factual scenarios in which the error in the jury instructions permitted the j 2025This determination hinges on the following questions: (1) did the error in the jury instructions create the possibility that the jury convicted the defendant based on factual findings that would not have led to conviction had the instructions been correct? and, (2) if so, is there a reasonable probability that at least one juror based its verdict on those factual findings?” State v. Seach, 2021 UT App 22, ¶ 24 , 483 P.3d 1265 (cleaned up). ¶18 The first step in this analysis requires that we “identify the theoretical factual scenarios in which the error in the jury instructions permitted the j | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re Estate of Wright
neutral
2 sentences2025This is so because the district court “is in a much better position than this court to evaluate the parties’ conduct, the context in which the claimed irregularity occurred, and the fact-finder’s reaction.” In re Estate of Wright, 2024 UT App 146, ¶ 17 , 559 P.3d 966 (quotation simplified). ¶52 Here, the district court determined that, “[h]aving presided over the trial, and upon careful review of the record, . . . the isolated instances of violations of its in limine order after October 20 did not prejudice [Ameritech] or come close to depriving [Ameritech] of a fair trial.” Even if we assume 2025This is so because the district court “is in a much better position than this court to evaluate the parties’ conduct, the context in which the claimed irregularity occurred, and the fact-finder’s reaction.” In re Estate of Wright, 2024 UT App 146, ¶ 17 , 559 P.3d 966 (quotation simplified). ¶52 Here, the district court determined that, “[h]aving presided over the trial, and upon careful review of the record, . . . the isolated instances of violations of its in limine order after October 20 did not prejudice [Ameritech] or come close to depriving [Ameritech] of a fair trial.” Even if we assume | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Staszkiewicz v. Thomas
neutral
2 sentences2025And the two steps of the stalking analysis are addressed serially, meaning that if there is no course of conduct, the court should end its analysis and deny the request for a civil stalking injunction. ¶31 If the court finds that an individual engaged in a course of conduct, the court then moves to the second step of the stalking analysis, where it considers “whether the conduct at issue would cause emotional distress or fear to a reasonable person in the petitioner’s circumstances.” Staszkiewicz v. Thomas, 2024 UT App 183, ¶ 17 , 562 P.3d 723 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 583 P.3d 260 (Utah 202 2025And the two steps of the stalking analysis are addressed serially, meaning that if there is no course of conduct, the court should end its analysis and deny the request for a civil stalking injunction. ¶31 If the court finds that an individual engaged in a course of conduct, the court then moves to the second step of the stalking analysis, where it considers “whether the conduct at issue would cause emotional distress or fear to a reasonable person in the petitioner’s circumstances.” Staszkiewicz v. Thomas, 2024 UT App 183, ¶ 17 , 562 P.3d 723 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 583 P.3d 260 (Utah 202 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Ameritech College Holdings v. Aiken
green
1 sentence2025This is so because the district court “is in a much better position than this court to evaluate the parties’ conduct, the context in which the claimed irregularity occurred, and the fact-finder’s reaction.” In re Estate of Wright, 2024 UT App 146, ¶ 17 , 559 P.3d 966 (quotation simplified). ¶52 Here, the district court determined that, “[h]aving presided over the trial, and upon careful review of the record, . . . the isolated instances of violations of its in limine order after October 20 did not prejudice [Ameritech] or come close to depriving [Ameritech] of a fair trial.” Even if we assume | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Utah County Ex Rel. County Board of Equalization v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024We have long recognized the commonsense proposition that a property may be used for more than one purpose. 21 Distinguishing between __________________________________________________________ 18 709 P.2d 265 , 269–70 (Utah 1985) [hereinafter Intermountain]. 19 See Howell v. Cnty. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. MacDonald
green
1 sentence2021In making this determination, a court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, “but the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322 (1994) (per curiam) (cleaned up). ¶45 Focusing on the first step of this inquiry, Goddard argues that he was in custody because “a reasonable person in Goddard’s position would not have felt free to leave.” This statement is true enough, as a suspect “is not free to leave . . . during a | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Fullerton
green
2 sentences2021“If ‘an individual’s freedom of movement was curtailed,’ the focus turns to ‘whether the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of stationhouse questioning at issue in Miranda.’” State v. Fullerton, 2018 UT 49, ¶ 31 , 428 P.3d 1052 (quoting Howes, 565 U.S. at 509 ). 2021“If ‘an individual’s freedom of movement was curtailed,’ the focus turns to ‘whether the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of stationhouse questioning at issue in Miranda.’” State v. Fullerton, 2018 UT 49, ¶ 31 , 428 P.3d 1052 (quoting Howes, 565 U.S. at 509 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Thornton
green
1 sentence2020But this test presents “a low bar,” see Thornton, 2017 UT 9, ¶ 61 , because “[e]vidence is relevant if . . . it has any tendency to make a fact [of consequence] more or less probable than it would be without the evidence,” Utah R. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Provo City v. Warden
green
1 sentence2015If the level of the State’s interest in investigating whether a motorist needs aid justifies the degree to which an officer interferes with the motorist’s freedoms in order to perform this investigation, the seizure is not “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment. ¶27 Under the first step of this inquiry, we determine that the deputies’ seizure of Mr. Anderson vehicle was minimally invasive of his “right to be free from arbitrary interferences from law enforcement officers.” See id. at 363 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Brooks
green
1 sentence2011"Because the unique element of each crime will always require proof beyond that needed for proof of the bare elements of the other crime," id., the first step of the analysis is sufficient to demonstrate that Unlawful Sexual Conduct is not a lesser included offense of rape 112 This conclusion is consistent with Utah precedent. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Tangren Family Trust v. Tangren Ex Rel. Tangren
green
1 sentence2010But the question of integration is merely the first step in the analysis, after which we proceed to the question of whether there is an ambiguity in the contracts, see id. 1 18, which exercise, as we discuss in our analysis above, allows resort to some extrinsic evidence. . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State Ex Rel. Lm
green
2 sentences2010Henry Day correctly states that nearly all of these articles are not part of the record below and that we therefore may not rely upon those articles on appeal, see In re L.M., 2001 UT App 314 , ¶ 16 n. 3, 37 P.3d 1188 ("Our policy has long been, and continues to be, we will not consider new evidence on appeal." (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2010Henry Day correctly states that nearly all of these articles are not part of the record below and that we therefore may not rely upon those articles on appeal, see In re L.M., 2001 UT App 314 , ¶ 16 n. 3, 37 P.3d 1188 ("Our policy has long been, and continues to be, we will not consider new evidence on appeal." (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
McCullough v. Virginia
green
1 sentence2005Id. ¶ 15 The first step in our analysis is therefore to determine whether the Smiths had a vested interest in the disputed portion of the punitive damages judgment. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Sayward v. Carlson green | 1 | 1904–1904 |
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.