23 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Flying Diamond Oil Corp. v. Newton Sheep Co.green2 sentences2008See, e.g., Flying Diamond Oil v. Newton Sheep Co., 776 P.2d 618, 622 (Utah 1989) (holding that remand to resolve the issue of whether a contract could be assigned was unnecessary where contractual language and undisputed facts allowed the appellate court to "fairly and properly resolve the case on the record"); State v. Mirquet, 844 P.2d 995, 999 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) ("[W]here, as here, the evidence is essentially undisputed and the undisputed facts support a determination that defendant was in custody, the [district court's] mere failure to recite the precise words of the custody standard doe 1992See, e.g., Flying Diamond Oil v. Newton Sheep Co., 776 P.2d 618, 622 (Utah 1989) (holding remand unnecessary where undisputed facts allow appellate court to "fairly and properly resolve the case on the record"); State v. Vincent, 845 P.2d 254 at 259 n. 8 (Utah App.1992) (reversing trial court's ruling of indigency based on undisputed facts in the record); State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 771 n. 10 (Utah App.1990) (upholding legality of stop despite lack of findings where undisputed facts showed clear statutory violation). | 2 | 2 |
Howes v. Fieldsgreen2 sentences2017Howes, 565 U.S. at 509 , 132 S.Ct. 1181 . ¶47 These factors guide our analysis, in the context of the Supreme Court’s refusal to “demarcate a limited set of relevant circumstances” that control the inquiry and to instead “require[ ] police officers and courts to examine all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation.” J.D.B., 564 U.S. at 270-71 , 131 S.Ct. 2394 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Maestas, 2012 UT App 53, ¶ 50 , 272 P.3d 769 (stating that while the Comer factors “aid” in the custody analysis, “[n]o one factor is. dispositive,” and the cust 2017Howes, 565 U.S. at 509 , 132 S.Ct. 1181 . ¶47 These factors guide our analysis, in the context of the Supreme Court’s refusal to “demarcate a limited set of relevant circumstances” that control the inquiry and to instead “require[ ] police officers and courts to examine all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation.” J.D.B., 564 U.S. at 270-71 , 131 S.Ct. 2394 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Maestas, 2012 UT App 53, ¶ 50 , 272 P.3d 769 (stating that while the Comer factors “aid” in the custody analysis, “[n]o one factor is. dispositive,” and the cust | 1 | 5 |
Twitchell v. Twitchellgreen2 sentences2026Of note, the dispute in Twitchell was indeed about a joint custody decision, see 2022 UT App 49, ¶¶ 3, 11, 12 , which meant that all of the factors were, by statute, mandatory. ¶49 As a result, we don’t read Twitchell as having created a broadly applicable rule under which an otherwise permissive “may” effectively becomes a mandatory “must” whenever a party presents significant evidence about some statutory factor, even if 9. 2023But “where significant evidence concerning a particular factor is presented to the district court,” especially where that factor is a critically important one, “findings that omit all discussion of that evidence” and of that factor “must be deemed inadequate.” Id. ¶26 Again, we do not foreclose the possibility that a change of custody could be warranted here after a more fulsome analysis of the relevant custody factors, and our opinion should not be read as placing a thumb on the scale in either direction. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Jessopgreen2 sentences2025Under the second step, we must also determine “whether the relevant environment presented the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda.” Jessop, 2023 UT App 140, ¶ 40 (quotation simplified). ¶22 “Of course, any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a crime.” MacDonald, 2017 UT App 124, ¶ 32 (quotation simplified). 20210247-CA 12 2025 UT App 4 2023Id. ¶ 24 (quotation simplified). 20210544-CA 22 2023 UT App 140 State v. Jessop are not limited to, “the location of the questioning, its duration, statements made during the interview, the presence or absence of physical restraints during the questioning, and the release of the interviewee at the end of the questioning.” Id. (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mirquetgreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Flying Diamond Oil v. Newton Sheep Co., 776 P.2d 618, 622 (Utah 1989) (holding that remand to resolve the issue of whether a contract could be assigned was unnecessary where contractual language and undisputed facts allowed the appellate court to "fairly and properly resolve the case on the record"); State v. Mirquet, 844 P.2d 995, 999 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) ("[W]here, as here, the evidence is essentially undisputed and the undisputed facts support a determination that defendant was in custody, the [district court's] mere failure to recite the precise words of the custody standard doe 1996The court stated, “[Wjhere, as here, the evidence is essentially undisputed and the undisputed facts support a determination that defendant was in custody, the [district court’s] mere failure to recite the precise words of the custody standard does not demand a remand for more specific findings.” Mirquet, 844 P.2d at 999 . | 1 | 2 |
State in Interest of HRVgreen1 sentence2025“Whether the juvenile court applied the appropriate legal standard [in a custody hearing] is a question of law that we review for correctness.” In re S.M., 2007 UT 21, ¶ 15 , 154 P.3d 835 ; see also In re C.C., 2013 UT 26 , ¶ 12, 301 P.3d 1000 ; In re adoption of B.T.D., 2003 UT App 99 , ¶ 13, 68 P.3d 1021 ; In re H.R.V., 906 P.2d 913, 915 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. MacDonaldgreen2 sentences2025See State v. MacDonald, 2017 UT App 124, ¶ 23 , 402 P.3d 91 (“[E]ven when police disclose that they suspect the interviewee of a crime, that disclosure may not bear great weight in the custody analysis where other objective indicia of arrest are absent.”). 2025See State v. MacDonald, 2017 UT App 124, ¶ 23 , 402 P.3d 91 (“[E]ven when police disclose that they suspect the interviewee of a crime, that disclosure may not bear great weight in the custody analysis where other objective indicia of arrest are absent.”). | 1 | 1 |
In re C.C. and K.H. (S.C. v. State)green1 sentence2025“Whether the juvenile court applied the appropriate legal standard [in a custody hearing] is a question of law that we review for correctness.” In re S.M., 2007 UT 21, ¶ 15 , 154 P.3d 835 ; see also In re C.C., 2013 UT 26 , ¶ 12, 301 P.3d 1000 ; In re adoption of B.T.D., 2003 UT App 99 , ¶ 13, 68 P.3d 1021 ; In re H.R.V., 906 P.2d 913, 915 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
S.C. v. Stategreen1 sentence2025“Whether the juvenile court applied the appropriate legal standard [in a custody hearing] is a question of law that we review for correctness.” In re S.M., 2007 UT 21, ¶ 15 , 154 P.3d 835 ; see also In re C.C., 2013 UT 26 , ¶ 12, 301 P.3d 1000 ; In re adoption of B.T.D., 2003 UT App 99 , ¶ 13, 68 P.3d 1021 ; In re H.R.V., 906 P.2d 913, 915 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Barnes v. Barnesgreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., K.P.S. v. E.J.P., 2018 UT App 5 , ¶¶ 30–42, 414 P.3d 933 (determining that the court’s factual findings were inadequate where it made factual conclusions but did not discuss the evidence underlying those conclusions and rejected the guardian ad litem’s recommendation without explanation); Bartlett v. Bartlett, 2015 UT App 2, ¶ 6 , 342 P.3d 296 (rejecting the court’s conclusory finding that the mother was “better able and equipped to support and sustain a positive relationship between the children and their father” where the “court identified no subsidiary facts supporting this findi | 1 | 1 |
K.P.S. v. E.J.P.green1 sentence2022See, e.g., K.P.S. v. E.J.P., 2018 UT App 5 , ¶¶ 30–42, 414 P.3d 933 (determining that the court’s factual findings were inadequate where it made factual conclusions but did not discuss the evidence underlying those conclusions and rejected the guardian ad litem’s recommendation without explanation); Bartlett v. Bartlett, 2015 UT App 2, ¶ 6 , 342 P.3d 296 (rejecting the court’s conclusory finding that the mother was “better able and equipped to support and sustain a positive relationship between the children and their father” where the “court identified no subsidiary facts supporting this findi | 1 | 1 |
K.P.S. v. E.J.P.green1 sentence2022See, e.g., K.P.S. v. E.J.P., 2018 UT App 5 , ¶¶ 30–42, 414 P.3d 933 (determining that the court’s factual findings were inadequate where it made factual conclusions but did not discuss the evidence underlying those conclusions and rejected the guardian ad litem’s recommendation without explanation); Bartlett v. Bartlett, 2015 UT App 2, ¶ 6 , 342 P.3d 296 (rejecting the court’s conclusory finding that the mother was “better able and equipped to support and sustain a positive relationship between the children and their father” where the “court identified no subsidiary facts supporting this findi | 1 | 1 |
Paryzek v. Paryzekgreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., K.P.S. v. E.J.P., 2018 UT App 5 , ¶¶ 30–42, 414 P.3d 933 (determining that the court’s factual findings were inadequate where it made factual conclusions but did not discuss the evidence underlying those conclusions and rejected the guardian ad litem’s recommendation without explanation); Bartlett v. Bartlett, 2015 UT App 2, ¶ 6 , 342 P.3d 296 (rejecting the court’s conclusory finding that the mother was “better able and equipped to support and sustain a positive relationship between the children and their father” where the “court identified no subsidiary facts supporting this findi | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Maestasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Dominick Pelletiergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chula v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Cookgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Murphy v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Callen v. Gillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hudema v. Carpenter
green
2 sentences2025“The court shall give substantial weight to the existing joint legal custody or joint physical custody order when the minor child is thriving, happy, and well-adjusted.” Id. § 81-9-208(4)(c). ¶22 While all the custody factors are important, “each is not on equal footing.” Hudema v. Carpenter, 1999 UT App 290, ¶ 26 , 989 P.2d 491 . 2025“The court shall give substantial weight to the existing joint legal custody or joint physical custody order when the minor child is thriving, happy, and well-adjusted.” Id. § 81-9-208(4)(c). ¶22 While all the custody factors are important, “each is not on equal footing.” Hudema v. Carpenter, 1999 UT App 290, ¶ 26 , 989 P.2d 491 . | 2 | 2016–2025 |
State v. Fullerton
green
2 sentences2023“Relevant factors include,” but “[w]hile these four factors may, at times, be relevant in a custody analysis, misplaced reliance on these factors can be highly problematic, especially where such reliance leads to conflicts with controlling law.” Fullerton, 2018 UT 49, ¶ 23 . 2019Recently, however, the court noted that, “[w]hile these four factors may, at times, be relevant in a custody analysis,” “[s]trict or sole reliance on the Carner factors is inconsistent with . . . federal law,” which dictates that the “custody” question must be answered based on the “totality of the circumstances.” State v. Fullerton, 2018 UT 49, ¶ 23 , 428 P.3d 1052 . | 2 | 2019–2023 |
Lobendahn v. Lobendahn
green
2 sentences2023Specifically, Father argues that the court’s analysis of the custody factors is not supported by the evidence with regard to (1) the parents’ commitment to the care and custody of the children, (2) not disrupting a custody arrangement where the children are happy and well-adjusted in their current circumstances, (3) the respect each parent affords the other parent’s role, (4) the parents’ 20210278-CA 20 2023 UT App 137 Lobendahn v. Lobendahn ability to make decisions jointly, and (5) whether it was better to remain in Washington versus returning to Utah. ¶34 But Father does not tie his argumen 2023Specifically, Father argues that the court’s analysis of the custody factors is not supported by the evidence with regard to (1) the parents’ commitment to the care and custody of the children, (2) not disrupting a custody arrangement where the children are happy and well-adjusted in their current circumstances, (3) the respect each parent affords the other parent’s role, (4) the parents’ 20210278-CA 20 2023 UT App 137 Lobendahn v. Lobendahn ability to make decisions jointly, and (5) whether it was better to remain in Washington versus returning to Utah. ¶34 But Father does not tie his argumen | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State Ex Rel. Bb
green
2 sentences2006(In re B.B.), 2002 UT App 82 , 45 P.3d 527 , aff'd sub nom. 2006(In re B.B.), 2002 UT App 82 , 45 P.3d 527 , aff'd sub nom. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
In re K.M.
neutral
1 sentence2025Relatedly, Parents claim that the juvenile court abused its discretion in rejecting the evidence that 20230945-CA 11 2025 UT App 17 In re K.M. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Office of the Guardian ad Litem v. H.M.
green
1 sentence2025“Whether the juvenile court applied the appropriate legal standard [in a custody hearing] is a question of law that we review for correctness.” In re S.M., 2007 UT 21, ¶ 15 , 154 P.3d 835 ; see also In re C.C., 2013 UT 26 , ¶ 12, 301 P.3d 1000 ; In re adoption of B.T.D., 2003 UT App 99 , ¶ 13, 68 P.3d 1021 ; In re H.R.V., 906 P.2d 913, 915 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2025Under the second step, we must also determine “whether the relevant environment presented the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda.” Jessop, 2023 UT App 140, ¶ 40 (quotation simplified). ¶22 “Of course, any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a crime.” MacDonald, 2017 UT App 124, ¶ 32 (quotation simplified). 20210247-CA 12 2025 UT App 4 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Adoption of BTD
green
2 sentences2025“Whether the juvenile court applied the appropriate legal standard [in a custody hearing] is a question of law that we review for correctness.” In re S.M., 2007 UT 21, ¶ 15 , 154 P.3d 835 ; see also In re C.C., 2013 UT 26 , ¶ 12, 301 P.3d 1000 ; In re adoption of B.T.D., 2003 UT App 99 , ¶ 13, 68 P.3d 1021 ; In re H.R.V., 906 P.2d 913, 915 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). 2025“Whether the juvenile court applied the appropriate legal standard [in a custody hearing] is a question of law that we review for correctness.” In re S.M., 2007 UT 21, ¶ 15 , 154 P.3d 835 ; see also In re C.C., 2013 UT 26 , ¶ 12, 301 P.3d 1000 ; In re adoption of B.T.D., 2003 UT App 99 , ¶ 13, 68 P.3d 1021 ; In re H.R.V., 906 P.2d 913, 915 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Interest of Sm
green
1 sentence2025“Whether the juvenile court applied the appropriate legal standard [in a custody hearing] is a question of law that we review for correctness.” In re S.M., 2007 UT 21, ¶ 15 , 154 P.3d 835 ; see also In re C.C., 2013 UT 26 , ¶ 12, 301 P.3d 1000 ; In re adoption of B.T.D., 2003 UT App 99 , ¶ 13, 68 P.3d 1021 ; In re H.R.V., 906 P.2d 913, 915 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Schaefer
green
1 sentence2025Under the second step, we must also determine “whether the relevant environment presented the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda.” Jessop, 2023 UT App 140, ¶ 40 (quotation simplified). ¶22 “Of course, any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a crime.” MacDonald, 2017 UT App 124, ¶ 32 (quotation simplified). 20210247-CA 12 2025 UT App 4 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Martinez v. Sanchez-Garcia
green
2 sentences2024Cf. Martinez v. Sanchez-Garcia, 2023 UT App 60, ¶ 21 , 532 P.3d 105 (stating that under Utah Code section 30-3-10.4(2), which similarly states that when considering whether modifying a custody order is in the child’s best interest, the trial court shall consider the factors listed in section 10(2) and section 10.2(2), courts “are statutorily required to consider, at least 20210637-CA 17 2024 UT App 54 Tilleman v. Tilleman in some form, twenty-five enumerated factors, as well as any other relevant factor”) (quotation simplified). ¶38 We note, however, that “not all [the section 10(2) and sectio 2024Cf. Martinez v. Sanchez-Garcia, 2023 UT App 60, ¶ 21 , 532 P.3d 105 (stating that under Utah Code section 30-3-10.4(2), which similarly states that when considering whether modifying a custody order is in the child’s best interest, the trial court shall consider the factors listed in section 10(2) and section 10.2(2), courts “are statutorily required to consider, at least 20210637-CA 17 2024 UT App 54 Tilleman v. Tilleman in some form, twenty-five enumerated factors, as well as any other relevant factor”) (quotation simplified). ¶38 We note, however, that “not all [the section 10(2) and sectio | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Tilleman v. Tilleman
green
2 sentences2024That section provides that “[i]n determining whether the best interest of a child will be served by ordering joint legal custody or joint physical custody or both, the court shall consider the custody factors in Section 30-3-10, and the following factors[.]” Id. § 30-3-10.2(2) (emphasis added). 2024Cf. Martinez v. Sanchez-Garcia, 2023 UT App 60, ¶ 21 , 532 P.3d 105 (stating that under Utah Code section 30-3-10.4(2), which similarly states that when considering whether modifying a custody order is in the child’s best interest, the trial court shall consider the factors listed in section 10(2) and section 10.2(2), courts “are statutorily required to consider, at least 20210637-CA 17 2024 UT App 54 Tilleman v. Tilleman in some form, twenty-five enumerated factors, as well as any other relevant factor”) (quotation simplified). ¶38 We note, however, that “not all [the section 10(2) and sectio | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Taghipour v. Jerez
green
1 sentence2024Thus, although both section 10(2) and section 10.2(2) purport to govern custody determinations, because section 10(2) applies more generally to “any form of custody,” id. § 30-3-10(2), and because section 10.2(2) “is tailored precisely” to address joint custody—the type of custody at issue here—section 10.2(2) is the more specific of the two provisions and thus governs, see Taghipour, 2002 UT 74, ¶ 14 . ¶37 Therefore, based on the plain language of section 10.2(2) that “the court shall consider the custody factors in Section 30-3-10 and” additional factors listed in section 10.2(2), see Utah C | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Bartlett v. Bartlett
green
2 sentences2022See, e.g., K.P.S. v. E.J.P., 2018 UT App 5 , ¶¶ 30–42, 414 P.3d 933 (determining that the court’s factual findings were inadequate where it made factual conclusions but did not discuss the evidence underlying those conclusions and rejected the guardian ad litem’s recommendation without explanation); Bartlett v. Bartlett, 2015 UT App 2, ¶ 6 , 342 P.3d 296 (rejecting the court’s conclusory finding that the mother was “better able and equipped to support and sustain a positive relationship between the children and their father” where the “court identified no subsidiary facts supporting this findi 2022See, e.g., K.P.S. v. E.J.P., 2018 UT App 5 , ¶¶ 30–42, 414 P.3d 933 (determining that the court’s factual findings were inadequate where it made factual conclusions but did not discuss the evidence underlying those conclusions and rejected the guardian ad litem’s recommendation without explanation); Bartlett v. Bartlett, 2015 UT App 2, ¶ 6 , 342 P.3d 296 (rejecting the court’s conclusory finding that the mother was “better able and equipped to support and sustain a positive relationship between the children and their father” where the “court identified no subsidiary facts supporting this findi | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Hinds v. Hinds-Holm
green
1 sentence2022Evaluator opined it was in Child’s best interest for Father to be awarded sole legal and physical custody of Child, with Mother receiving parent-time. ¶19 The court was “persuaded” (1) that Evaluator “did a thorough and careful evaluation that included an appropriate analysis of all the pertinent factors” and (2) “by a preponderance of the evidence that [Evaluator’s] expert opinions [were] in the best interests of the minor child in this case.” ¶20 In reaching the conclusion that it was in Child’s best interest that Father be awarded sole legal and physical custody, the court noted that it had | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Cummings v. Cummings
green
1 sentence2022See, e.g., K.P.S. v. E.J.P., 2018 UT App 5 , ¶¶ 30–42, 414 P.3d 933 (determining that the court’s factual findings were inadequate where it made factual conclusions but did not discuss the evidence underlying those conclusions and rejected the guardian ad litem’s recommendation without explanation); Bartlett v. Bartlett, 2015 UT App 2, ¶ 6 , 342 P.3d 296 (rejecting the court’s conclusory finding that the mother was “better able and equipped to support and sustain a positive relationship between the children and their father” where the “court identified no subsidiary facts supporting this findi | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Roberts v. Roberts
green
1 sentence2022See, e.g., K.P.S. v. E.J.P., 2018 UT App 5 , ¶¶ 30–42, 414 P.3d 933 (determining that the court’s factual findings were inadequate where it made factual conclusions but did not discuss the evidence underlying those conclusions and rejected the guardian ad litem’s recommendation without explanation); Bartlett v. Bartlett, 2015 UT App 2, ¶ 6 , 342 P.3d 296 (rejecting the court’s conclusory finding that the mother was “better able and equipped to support and sustain a positive relationship between the children and their father” where the “court identified no subsidiary facts supporting this findi | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Reigelsperger green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| J. D. B. v. North Carolina green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Salt Lake City v. Carner green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| California v. Beheler green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Cox v. Cox green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Mirquet green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Lovegren green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Vincent green | 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.