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.
15 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 2 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. Greengreen2 sentences2017See Green, 2004 UT 76, ¶ 13 , 99 P.3d 820 . ¶ 26 Most importantly, Mother fails to cite a decision in which this court addressed and rejected a materially identical claim. 2017See Green, 2004 UT 76, ¶ 13 , 99 P.3d 820 . ¶ 26 Most importantly, Mother fails to cite a decision in which this court addressed and rejected a materially identical claim. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2012The court reasoned that rule 608 “only bars direct testimony regarding the truthfulness of a witness on a particular occasion” and does not prohibit “testimony from which a jury could infer the veracity of the witness.” Id. ¶ 14 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Cruz, 2002 UT App 106U, para. 1 (mem.) (applying Adams to determine that a detective’s testimony describing the victim’s story as consistent, without any indication of whether the detective believed the victim’s allegations, “‘did not directly address [the victim’s] veracity,’ and did not ‘impermissibly invade the p 2012The court reasoned that rule 608 “only bars direct testimony regarding the truthfulness of a witness on a particular occasion” and does not prohibit “testimony from which a jury could infer the veracity of the witness.” Id. ¶ 14 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Cruz, 2002 UT App 106U, para. 1 (mem.) (applying Adams to determine that a detective’s testimony describing the victim’s story as consistent, without any indication of whether the detective believed the victim’s allegations, “‘did not directly address [the victim’s] veracity,’ and did not ‘impermissibly invade the p | 2 | 2 |
Bank of America v. Adamsongreen2 sentences2018See Bank of America v. Adamson , 2017 UT 2 , ¶¶ 12-13, 391 P.3d 196 (providing that a party who "fails to devote adequate attention to an issue is almost certainly going to fail to meet its burden of persuasion" on appeal). ¶41 The court also explained that "although her current living style does not match what she enjoyed during the marriage, there are insufficient funds after the divorce ... between the parties to allow her to live that lifestyle." The court appears to imply that the award of alimony could have been higher if Loren's income was similar to what he earned during the marriage. 2018See Bank of America v. Adamson , 2017 UT 2 , ¶¶ 12-13, 391 P.3d 196 (providing that a party who "fails to devote adequate attention to an issue is almost certainly going to fail to meet its burden of persuasion" on appeal). ¶41 The court also explained that "although her current living style does not match what she enjoyed during the marriage, there are insufficient funds after the divorce ... between the parties to allow her to live that lifestyle." The court appears to imply that the award of alimony could have been higher if Loren's income was similar to what he earned during the marriage. | 1 | 1 |
In re C.C.green1 sentence2017See Green, 2004 UT 76, ¶ 13 . 20160448-CA 9 2017 UT App 134 In re C.C. ¶26 Most importantly, Mother fails to cite a decision in which this court addressed and rejected a materially identical claim. | 1 | 1 |
Murray v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2003See Murray, 487 U.S. at 536-40 , 108 S.Ct. at 2532-34 . ¶ 10 Instead of questioning the validity of the independent source doctrine as to the second warrant, the trial court concluded that the independent source doctrine categorically “does not apply to violations of the ‘knock and announce’ statute.” The court reasoned that to rule otherwise would render the knock-and-announce statute meaningless since illegal entry could simply be remedied by a subsequent entry and the “illegal taint on the evidence was not removed by the subsequent service of the Second Search Warrant.” Before this court, D 2003See Murray, 487 U.S. at 536-40 , 108 S.Ct. at 2532-34 . ¶ 10 Instead of questioning the validity of the independent source doctrine as to the second warrant, the trial court concluded that the independent source doctrine categorically “does not apply to violations of the ‘knock and announce’ statute.” The court reasoned that to rule otherwise would render the knock-and-announce statute meaningless since illegal entry could simply be remedied by a subsequent entry and the “illegal taint on the evidence was not removed by the subsequent service of the Second Search Warrant.” Before this court, D | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence1990See State v. Johnson, 771 P.2d 326, 327-28 (Utah Ct.App.1989). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Puiggreen2 sentences1990See Townsel v. State, 763 P.2d 1353, 1355 (Alaska Ct.App.1988) (court held stop justified when vehicle's headlight was out, a tail light was broken, the license plate and windows were obscured, and speeding); State v. Puig, 112 Ariz. 519 , 544 P.2d 201, 202 (1975) (suspicion of defective turn signals justified stop); State v. Fuller, 556 A.2d 224, 224 (Me.1989) (stop justified when blinking headlights led officer to stop vehicle for safety reasons). 4 .We do not analyze this issue under article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution as the state constitutional issue was not sufficiently partic 1990See Townsel v. State, 763 P.2d 1353, 1355 (Alaska Ct.App.1988) (court held stop justified when vehicle's headlight was out, a tail light was broken, the license plate and windows were obscured, and speeding); State v. Puig, 112 Ariz. 519 , 544 P.2d 201, 202 (1975) (suspicion of defective turn signals justified stop); State v. Fuller, 556 A.2d 224, 224 (Me.1989) (stop justified when blinking headlights led officer to stop vehicle for safety reasons). 4 .We do not analyze this issue under article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution as the state constitutional issue was not sufficiently partic | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fullergreen1 sentence1990See Townsel v. State, 763 P.2d 1353, 1355 (Alaska Ct.App.1988) (court held stop justified when vehicle's headlight was out, a tail light was broken, the license plate and windows were obscured, and speeding); State v. Puig, 112 Ariz. 519 , 544 P.2d 201, 202 (1975) (suspicion of defective turn signals justified stop); State v. Fuller, 556 A.2d 224, 224 (Me.1989) (stop justified when blinking headlights led officer to stop vehicle for safety reasons). 4 .We do not analyze this issue under article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution as the state constitutional issue was not sufficiently partic | 1 | 1 |
Townsel v. Stategreen1 sentence1990See Townsel v. State, 763 P.2d 1353, 1355 (Alaska Ct.App.1988) (court held stop justified when vehicle's headlight was out, a tail light was broken, the license plate and windows were obscured, and speeding); State v. Puig, 112 Ariz. 519 , 544 P.2d 201, 202 (1975) (suspicion of defective turn signals justified stop); State v. Fuller, 556 A.2d 224, 224 (Me.1989) (stop justified when blinking headlights led officer to stop vehicle for safety reasons). 4 .We do not analyze this issue under article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution as the state constitutional issue was not sufficiently partic | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Harding Trust
green
2 sentences2026But a court’s discretion to deny fees in their entirety “is not unlimited” and does not permit it “to forgo a reasoned analysis.” In re A. Dean Harding Marital & Family Trust, 2023 UT App 81, ¶ 148 , 536 P.3d 38 (cleaned up). 2026But a court’s discretion to deny fees in their entirety “is not unlimited” and does not permit it “to forgo a reasoned analysis.” In re A. Dean Harding Marital & Family Trust, 2023 UT App 81, ¶ 148 , 536 P.3d 38 (cleaned up). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10860137
green
1 sentence2026The court explained that while there was “no doubt” that the evidence was prejudicial, it did not find that “the probative value of the evidence [was] outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” The court reasoned that rule 404(c) “doesn’t seem to delineate” how many other acts can be admitted and that “the more [other 20230326-CA 4 2026 UT App 80 State v. Torres Martinez acts] you have, the more it could show propensity,” which is “exactly what the rule is designed to allow.” But the court warned the State that the witnesses would not be allowed to testify about details “showing things oth | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Burdick v. Horner Townsend & Kent, Inc.
green
1 sentence2026Indeed, in Burdick, our supreme court determined that a district court had exceeded its discretion by denying a request for fees, in its entirety, for failure to allocate, noting that the movant’s “affidavit clearly identifie[d] 282 hours attributable only to” the successful claim. 2015 UT 8, ¶ 60 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Adams
green
1 sentence2012The court reasoned that rule 608 "only bars direct testimony regarding the truthfulness of a witness on a particular occasion" and does not prohibit "testimony from which a jury could infer the veracity of the witness." Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
United States v. Calandra
green
2 sentences2003We disagree. ¶ 11 Under the exclusionary rule, “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 , 94 S.Ct. 613, 619 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). 2003We disagree. ¶ 11 Under the exclusionary rule, “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 , 94 S.Ct. 613, 619 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Shearn Moody, Jr. v. Internal Revenue Service
green
2 sentences2001The court reasoned that this exception to the privilege is necessary because "perverse" results would be rendered if lawyers could "claim an evidentiary privilege to prevent disclosure of work product generated by those very activities the privilege was meant to prevent." Id. 2001The court reasoned that this exception to the privilege is necessary because "perverse" results would be rendered if lawyers could "claim an evidentiary privilege to prevent disclosure of work product generated by those very activities the privilege was meant to prevent." Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Brown
green
1 sentence1999Cf. State v. Brown, 853 P.2d 851 , 854 n. 1 (Utah 1992) (refusing to review issue raised initially in reply brief because appellant "would be rewarded for his omission and given the opportunity to present an unopposed analysis”); U.P.C., Inc. v. R.O.A. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Palmer v. Del Webb's High Sierra
green
2 sentences1992Mere causation is not enough.” Id. at 435-436 . 1992Mere causation is not enough." Id. at 435-436 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Christiansen v. Utah Transit Authority
green
1 sentence1987Christiansen, 649 P.2d at 47 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Gullings
green
1 sentence1980The Oregon Court said: So long as information is available which meets constitutional criminal due process standards and which was not secured through the close relationship between court worker and child, the safety and security ,,of the law-abiding public requires its use in adult criminal proceedings. [ 416 P.2d at 314 ] We believe the Oregon rule in Gullings to be the better reasoned rule. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.