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.
17 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Jensen v. Intermountain Power Agencygreen2 sentences2017And our case law has long held that “[a]n order not identified in the notice of appeal falls beyond our appellate jurisdiction.” In re Adoption of B.B., 2017 UT 59, ¶ 106 , __ P.3d __; see also Jensen v. Intermountain Power Agency, 1999 UT 10 , ¶¶ 6–9, 977 P.2d 474 (notice of appeal must identify orders for review; orders not identified are beyond the jurisdiction of the court to review). ¶71 A parallel principle applies to the appellant’s briefing. 2017And our case law has long held that “[a]n order not identified in the notice of appeal falls beyond our appellate jurisdiction.” In re Adoption of B.B., 2017 UT 59, ¶ 106 , __ P.3d __; see also Jensen v. Intermountain Power Agency, 1999 UT 10 , ¶¶ 6–9, 977 P.2d 474 (notice of appeal must identify orders for review; orders not identified are beyond the jurisdiction of the court to review). ¶71 A parallel principle applies to the appellant’s briefing. | 3 | 3 |
Hay v. Baumgartnergreen2 sentences2013P. 65A(c)(2) (emphasis added).2 And even 2 See Hay v. Baumgartner, 903 N.E.2d 1044, 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (interpreting a parallel rule and explaining that the require- ment of security and prescription for award of costs and damages for wrongful entry of injunction “arise[] from the expeditious manner in which the preliminary injunctive relief is issued and to the lack of a full hearing upon the facts”—considerations that “do (continued...) 17 WEBER CO. v. OGDEN TRECE Opinion of the Court in the case of a preliminary injunction, the language does not appear to give rise to an independent 2013P. 65A(c)(2) (emphasis added).2 And even 2 See Hay v. Baumgartner, 903 N.E.2d 1044, 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (interpreting a parallel rule and explaining that the require- ment of security and prescription for award of costs and damages for wrongful entry of injunction “arise[] from the expeditious manner in which the preliminary injunctive relief is issued and to the lack of a full hearing upon the facts”—considerations that “do (continued...) 17 WEBER CO. v. OGDEN TRECE Opinion of the Court in the case of a preliminary injunction, the language does not appear to give rise to an independent | 3 | 3 |
Morissette v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015The search results from this analysis confirm this same understanding and asserting that “since 1851, the term ‘minor child’ has ap- peared in the pages of the [New York] Times 2,866 times without ever referring to a fetus”). 15 See, e.g., Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 129 (1998) (opinion of the court per Breyer, J.) (interpreting federal sentenc- ing enhancement for one who “carries a firearm” in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. §924 (c)(1), in light of results of an online search of “computerized newspaper databases,” which in- cluded “thousands of … sentences” us 2015The search results from this analysis confirm this same understanding and asserting that “since 1851, the term ‘minor child’ has ap- peared in the pages of the [New York] Times 2,866 times without ever referring to a fetus”). 15 See, e.g., Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 129 (1998) (opinion of the court per Breyer, J.) (interpreting federal sentenc- ing enhancement for one who “carries a firearm” in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. §924 (c)(1), in light of results of an online search of “computerized newspaper databases,” which in- cluded “thousands of … sentences” us | 2 | 2 |
Muscarello v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015The search results from this analysis confirm this same understanding and asserting that “since 1851, the term ‘minor child’ has ap- peared in the pages of the [New York] Times 2,866 times without ever referring to a fetus”). 15 See, e.g., Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 129 (1998) (opinion of the court per Breyer, J.) (interpreting federal sentenc- ing enhancement for one who “carries a firearm” in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. §924 (c)(1), in light of results of an online search of “computerized newspaper databases,” which in- cluded “thousands of … sentences” us 2015The search results from this analysis confirm this same understanding and asserting that “since 1851, the term ‘minor child’ has ap- peared in the pages of the [New York] Times 2,866 times without ever referring to a fetus”). 15 See, e.g., Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 129 (1998) (opinion of the court per Breyer, J.) (interpreting federal sentenc- ing enhancement for one who “carries a firearm” in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. §924 (c)(1), in light of results of an online search of “computerized newspaper databases,” which in- cluded “thousands of … sentences” us | 2 | 2 |
Delaware State College v. Ricksgreen2 sentences2018State Coll. v. Ricks , 449 U.S. 250 , 257, 101 S.Ct. 498 , 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980) (articulating a parallel standard of proof under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ). 2018State Coll. v. Ricks , 449 U.S. 250 , 257, 101 S.Ct. 498 , 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980) (articulating a parallel standard of proof under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ). | 1 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Atgreen2 sentences2020Thus, simulated masturbation qualifies as an “other act of lewdness.” And a parallel principle would extend to the other lewd acts enumerated by statute: A simulated sex act could amount to an “other act of lewdness,” as could an act of virtual exposure of private parts . . . . 20190963-CA 9 2020 UT App 154 State v. Charles Id. ¶ 23 (quotation simplified); see also In re A.T., 2001 UT 82 , ¶¶ 11–13, 34 P.3d 228 (holding that “the simulation of masturbation in a public place with the intent to offend” would constitute an “other act of lewdness” under the statute). ¶16 In reaching its conclusion 2020Thus, simulated masturbation qualifies as an “other act of lewdness.” And a parallel principle would extend to the other lewd acts enumerated by statute: A simulated sex act could amount to an “other act of lewdness,” as could an act of virtual exposure of private parts . . . . 20190963-CA 9 2020 UT App 154 State v. Charles Id. ¶ 23 (quotation simplified); see also In re A.T., 2001 UT 82 , ¶¶ 11–13, 34 P.3d 228 (holding that “the simulation of masturbation in a public place with the intent to offend” would constitute an “other act of lewdness” under the statute). ¶16 In reaching its conclusion | 1 | 1 |
State v. Alonzogreen1 sentence2001See, eg., State v. Alonzo, 982 P.2d 606, 611 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (finding appearance of bias, yet refusing to grant new trial due to absence of actual bias under harmless error analysis), aff'd, 973 P.2d 975, 979 (Utah 1998) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity Ex Rel. Eikum v. Idaho State Board of Education Ex Rel. Mossmangreen2 sentences1998Opportunity v. Idaho State Bd. of Educ., 128 Idaho 276 , 912 P.2d 644, 652 (1996) (finding abuse of discretion where trial court denied motion in one-paragraph order without analysis or reasoning). 1998Opportunity v. Idaho State Bd. of Educ., 128 Idaho 276 , 912 P.2d 644, 652 (1996) (finding abuse of discretion where trial court denied motion in one-paragraph order without analysis or reasoning). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mendozagreen2 sentences1991See State v. Mendoza, 748 P.2d 181, 187 (Utah 1987) (Zimmerman, J., concurring) (Court has not yet considered Leon-type exception under Article I, Section 14, of the Utah Constitution). 1991See State v. Mendoza, 748 P.2d 181, 187 (Utah 1987) (Zimmerman, J., concurring) (Court has not yet considered Leon -type exception under Article I, Section 14, of the Utah Constitution). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Adoption B.B. v. R.K.B.
green
2 sentences2017And our case law has long held that “[a]n order not identified in the notice of appeal falls beyond our appellate jurisdiction.” In re Adoption of B.B., 2017 UT 59, ¶ 106 , __ P.3d __; see also Jensen v. Intermountain Power Agency, 1999 UT 10 , ¶¶ 6–9, 977 P.2d 474 (notice of appeal must identify orders for review; orders not identified are beyond the jurisdiction of the court to review). ¶71 A parallel principle applies to the appellant’s briefing. 2017And our case law has long held that “[a]n order not identified in the notice of appeal falls beyond our appellate jurisdiction.” In re Adoption of B.B., 2017 UT 59, ¶ 106 , __ P.3d __; see also Jensen v. Intermountain Power Agency, 1999 UT 10 , ¶¶ 6–9, 977 P.2d 474 (notice of appeal must identify orders for review; orders not identified are beyond the jurisdiction of the court to review). ¶71 A parallel principle applies to the appellant’s briefing. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Moskal v. United States
green
2 sentences2015The search results from this analysis confirm this same understanding and asserting that “since 1851, the term ‘minor child’ has ap- peared in the pages of the [New York] Times 2,866 times without ever referring to a fetus”). 15 See, e.g., Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 129 (1998) (opinion of the court per Breyer, J.) (interpreting federal sentenc- ing enhancement for one who “carries a firearm” in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. §924 (c)(1), in light of results of an online search of “computerized newspaper databases,” which in- cluded “thousands of … sentences” us 2015The search results from this analysis confirm this same understanding and asserting that “since 1851, the term ‘minor child’ has ap- peared in the pages of the [New York] Times 2,866 times without ever referring to a fetus”). 15 See, e.g., Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 129 (1998) (opinion of the court per Breyer, J.) (interpreting federal sentenc- ing enhancement for one who “carries a firearm” in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. §924 (c)(1), in light of results of an online search of “computerized newspaper databases,” which in- cluded “thousands of … sentences” us | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Charles
green
1 sentence2020Thus, simulated masturbation qualifies as an “other act of lewdness.” And a parallel principle would extend to the other lewd acts enumerated by statute: A simulated sex act could amount to an “other act of lewdness,” as could an act of virtual exposure of private parts . . . . 20190963-CA 9 2020 UT App 154 State v. Charles Id. ¶ 23 (quotation simplified); see also In re A.T., 2001 UT 82 , ¶¶ 11–13, 34 P.3d 228 (holding that “the simulation of masturbation in a public place with the intent to offend” would constitute an “other act of lewdness” under the statute). ¶16 In reaching its conclusion | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.
green
2 sentences2016And there is a parallel principle of deference in federal law, See Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 , 65 S.Ct. 1215 , 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945) (providing for deference to ageney interpretation of its own regulations unless it is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 , 117 S.Ct. 905 , 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (same). 130 We are in no way bound by the federal standard, however, And the underlying premises of this principle of deference are irreconcilable with our decisions in Murray and Hughes. 131 Schedule 38 is law. 2016And there is a parallel principle of deference in federal law, See Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 , 65 S.Ct. 1215 , 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945) (providing for deference to ageney interpretation of its own regulations unless it is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 , 117 S.Ct. 905 , 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (same). 130 We are in no way bound by the federal standard, however, And the underlying premises of this principle of deference are irreconcilable with our decisions in Murray and Hughes. 131 Schedule 38 is law. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bowles, Price Administrator, v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.
green
1 sentence2016And there is a parallel principle of deference in federal law, See Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 , 65 S.Ct. 1215 , 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945) (providing for deference to ageney interpretation of its own regulations unless it is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 , 117 S.Ct. 905 , 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (same). 130 We are in no way bound by the federal standard, however, And the underlying premises of this principle of deference are irreconcilable with our decisions in Murray and Hughes. 131 Schedule 38 is law. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Auer v. Robbins
green
2 sentences2016And there is a parallel principle of deference in federal law, See Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 , 65 S.Ct. 1215 , 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945) (providing for deference to ageney interpretation of its own regulations unless it is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 , 117 S.Ct. 905 , 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (same). 130 We are in no way bound by the federal standard, however, And the underlying premises of this principle of deference are irreconcilable with our decisions in Murray and Hughes. 131 Schedule 38 is law. 2016And there is a parallel principle of deference in federal law, See Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 , 65 S.Ct. 1215 , 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945) (providing for deference to ageney interpretation of its own regulations unless it is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 , 117 S.Ct. 905 , 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (same). 130 We are in no way bound by the federal standard, however, And the underlying premises of this principle of deference are irreconcilable with our decisions in Murray and Hughes. 131 Schedule 38 is law. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Brigham Young University v. Tremco Consultants, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012A parallel rule is one recognized in Tremco-that "denial of a motion to intervene is an appealable order." 6 2005 UT 19 , ¶ 46 n. 7, 110 P.3d 678 . 2012A parallel rule is one recognized in Tremco-that "denial of a motion to intervene is an appealable order." 6 2005 UT 19 , ¶ 46 n. 7, 110 P.3d 678 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In re Criminal Investigation, 7th District Court No. CS-1
green
2 sentences1996Likewise, in In re Criminal Investigation, 754 P.2d at 645 , we undertook an independent, separate analysis of our constitutional privilege, with a parallel analysis of the Fifth Amendment, noting the shared common law roots of both. 1996Likewise, in In re Criminal Investigation, 754 P.2d at 645 , we undertook an independent, separate analysis of our constitutional privilege, with a parallel analysis of the Fifth Amendment, noting the shared common law roots of both. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.