16 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mohigreen2 sentences1997See State v. Mohi, 901 P.2d 991, 995 (Utah 1995). 1997See State v. Mohi, 901 P.2d 991, 995 (Utah 1995). | 2 | 2 |
White v. Deseelhorstgreen2 sentences1994STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for an award of summary judgment is “well established.” White v. Deseelhorst, 879 P.2d 1371, 1374 (Utah 1994). 1994STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for an award of summary judgment is “well established.” White v. Deseelhorst, 879 P.2d 1371, 1374 (Utah 1994). | 2 | 2 |
OSI Industries, Inc. v. Utah State Tax Commission, Auditing Divisiongreen2 sentences1993See OSI Indus., Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 860 P.2d 381 (Utah App.1993). 1993OSI Indus., Inc. v. State Tax Comm’n, 860 P.2d 381, 383 (Utah App.1993) (because section 59-1-610 is procedural, it applies retroactively). | 2 | 2 |
Tummurru Trades, Inc. v. Utah State Tax Commissiongreen1 sentence2011UTAH CODE ANN. § 59-1-610(1) (2008). ¶ 17 The Commission's imposition of a negligence penalty will be upheld unless "contrary to law or otherwise erroneous." Vermax of Fla., Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 906 P.2d 314, 315 (Utah Ct.App. 1995) (quoting Tummurru Trades, Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 802 P.2d 715, 720 (Utah 1990)). | 1 | 1 |
Vermax of Florida, Inc. v. Utah State Tax Commissiongreen1 sentence2011UTAH CODE ANN. § 59-1-610(1) (2008). ¶ 17 The Commission's imposition of a negligence penalty will be upheld unless "contrary to law or otherwise erroneous." Vermax of Fla., Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 906 P.2d 314, 315 (Utah Ct.App. 1995) (quoting Tummurru Trades, Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 802 P.2d 715, 720 (Utah 1990)). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Stategreen1 sentence1998Though we review the trial court’s conclusions of law for correctness, see Miller v. State, 932 P.2d 618, 620 (Utah Ct.App.1997), we will disturb findings of fact only if they are clearly erroneous. | 1 | 1 |
Crookston v. Fire Insurance Exchangegreen1 sentence1998Exch., 817 P.2d 789, 799 (Utah 1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Ryan v. Gold Cross Services, Inc.green1 sentence1997See Ross v. Schackel, 920 P.2d 1159, 1162 (Utah 1996); Ryan v. Gold Cross Servs., Inc., 903 P.2d 423, 424 (Utah 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Ross v. Schackelgreen1 sentence1997See Ross v. Schackel, 920 P.2d 1159, 1162 (Utah 1996); Ryan v. Gold Cross Servs., Inc., 903 P.2d 423, 424 (Utah 1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Humphreygreen1 sentence1995See State v. Humphrey, 823 P.2d 464, 466 (Utah 1991). | 1 | 1 |
Ferro v. Utah Department of Commercegreen2 sentences1993“We review statutory interpretations by agencies for correctness, giving no deference to the agency’s interpretation, unless the statute grants to the agency the discretion to interpret the statute.” Ferro v. Department of Commerce, 828 P.2d 507, 510 (Utah App.1992) (citing Morton Int’l, Inc. v. State Tax Comm’n, 814 P.2d 581, 588 (Utah 1991)). 2 A legislative grant of discretion to an agency to interpret a statute may be either explicit or implicit. 1993"We review statutory interpretations by agencies for correctness, giving no deference to the agency's interpretation, unless the statute grants to the agency the discretion to interpret the statute." Ferro v. Department of Commerce, 828 P.2d 507, 510 (Utah App.1992) (citing Morton Int'l, Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 814 P.2d 581, 588 (Utah 1991)). [2] A legislative grant of discretion to an agency to interpret a statute may be either explicit or implicit. | 1 | 1 |
Morton International, Inc. v. Auditing Division of the Utah State Tax Commissiongreen2 sentences1993“We review statutory interpretations by agencies for correctness, giving no deference to the agency’s interpretation, unless the statute grants to the agency the discretion to interpret the statute.” Ferro v. Department of Commerce, 828 P.2d 507, 510 (Utah App.1992) (citing Morton Int’l, Inc. v. State Tax Comm’n, 814 P.2d 581, 588 (Utah 1991)). 2 A legislative grant of discretion to an agency to interpret a statute may be either explicit or implicit. 1993"We review statutory interpretations by agencies for correctness, giving no deference to the agency's interpretation, unless the statute grants to the agency the discretion to interpret the statute." Ferro v. Department of Commerce, 828 P.2d 507, 510 (Utah App.1992) (citing Morton Int'l, Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 814 P.2d 581, 588 (Utah 1991)). [2] A legislative grant of discretion to an agency to interpret a statute may be either explicit or implicit. | 1 | 1 |
Belnorth Petroleum Corp. v. State Tax Commissiongreen2 sentences1993STANDARD OF REVIEW At issue in this case is the Industrial Commission’s interpretation of specific language in the Workers’ Compensation Act and various amendments to the Act beginning in 1945. 1 Under Utah Code Ann. § 63 -46b-16(4)(d) (1989), we may grant relief from an agency action if the agency “has erroneously interpreted or applied the law.” See Belnorth Petroleum v. State Tax Commission, 845 P.2d 266, 268 (Utah App.), cert, filed, No. 930068-SC (Utah Feb. 11, 1993). 1993STANDARD OF REVIEW At issue in this case is the Industrial Commission's interpretation of specific language in the Workers' Compensation Act and various amendments to the Act beginning in 1945. [1] Under Utah Code Ann. § 63 -46b-16(4)(d) (1989), we may grant relief from an agency action if the agency *650 "has erroneously interpreted or applied the law." See Belnorth Petroleum v. State Tax Commission, 845 P.2d 266, 268 (Utah App.), cert. filed, No. 930068-SC (Utah Feb. 11, 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Morton Thiokol, Inc.green1 sentence1993The trial court based this decision upon a conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to create an issue of material fact as to the existence of an implied employment contract. 3 “Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Johnson v. Morton Thiokol, Inc., 818 P.2d 997, 999-1000 (Utah 1991) (citing Utah R.Civ.P. 56(c)). | 1 | 1 |
Wagstaff v. Barnesgreen1 sentence1992STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for reviewing a dismissal of a habeas corpus petition is outlined in Wagstaff v. Barnes, 802 P.2d 774, 778 (Utah App.1990) (quoting Bundy v. Deland, 763 P.2d 803, 805 (Utah 1988)): In reviewing an appeal from a dismissal of a habeas corpus petition, “we survey the record in the light most favorable to the findings and judgment; and we will not reverse if there is a reasonable basis therein to support the trial court’s refusal to be convinced that the writ should be granted.” The trial court’s conclusions of law are accorded no deference but are reviewe | 1 | 1 |
Termunde v. Cookgreen1 sentence1992Termunde v. Cook, 786 P.2d 1341, 1342 (Utah 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Bundy v. Delandgreen1 sentence1992STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for reviewing a dismissal of a habeas corpus petition is outlined in Wagstaff v. Barnes, 802 P.2d 774, 778 (Utah App.1990) (quoting Bundy v. Deland, 763 P.2d 803, 805 (Utah 1988)): In reviewing an appeal from a dismissal of a habeas corpus petition, “we survey the record in the light most favorable to the findings and judgment; and we will not reverse if there is a reasonable basis therein to support the trial court’s refusal to be convinced that the writ should be granted.” The trial court’s conclusions of law are accorded no deference but are reviewe | 1 | 1 |
State v. Marshallgreen1 sentence1990See also State v. Marshall, 791 P.2d 880, 882 (Utah Ct.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Braithwaite v. West Valley City Corp.
green
1 sentence1998STANDARD OF REVIEW Our standard for reviewing a trial court’s grant of a j.n.o.v. is strict: “ ‘In passing on a motion for a j.n.o.v., ... a trial court has no latitude and must be correct.’ ” Braithwaite, 921 P.2d at 999 (quoting Crookston v. Fire Ins. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1990STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for a challenge to a lower court’s suppression ruling was stated by this court in State v. Johnson, 771 P.2d 326 (Utah Ct.App.1989): “In considering the trial court’s action in denying defendant’s motion to suppress, we will not disturb its factual evaluation unless its findings are clearly erroneous.” Id. at 327 . 1990STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for a challenge to a lower court’s suppression ruling was stated by this court in State v. Johnson, 771 P.2d 326 (Utah Ct.App.1989): “In considering the trial court’s action in denying defendant’s motion to suppress, we will not disturb its factual evaluation unless its findings are clearly erroneous.” Id. at 327 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Walker
green
1 sentence1987State v. Walker, 743 P.2d 191 (Utah 1987). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.