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 1983–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2015In Utah, that authority derives from the Utah Constitution, state statute, or a combination of the two.5 ¶20 “[T]he concept of subject matter jurisdiction relates to the relationship between the claim and the forum that allows for the exercise of jurisdiction.” Johnson v. Johnson, 2010 UT 28, ¶ 9 , 234 P.3d 1100 (emphases added) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2015In Utah, that authority derives from the Utah Constitution, state statute, or a combination of the two.5 ¶20 “[T]he concept of subject matter jurisdiction relates to the relationship between the claim and the forum that allows for the exercise of jurisdiction.” Johnson v. Johnson, 2010 UT 28, ¶ 9 , 234 P.3d 1100 (emphases added) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 8 |
State v. Silvagreen2 sentences2011R. 104(a), (b); see also Fed.R.Evid. 901 advisory comm. notes (explaining that "showing authenticity or identity *78 falls in the category of relevancy dependent upon fulfillment of a condition of fact and is governed by the procedure set forth in rule 104(b)"); O'Neal v. Esty, 637 F.2d 846, 850 (2d Cir.1980) (explaining the relationship between rule 901 and rule 104(b) under the Federal Rules of Evidence); see also State v. Silva, 2000 UT App 292, ¶¶ 16-19 , 13 P.3d 604 (distinguishing requirements for authentication under rule 901 from the more stringent constitutional requirements to determ 2011R. 104(a), (b); see also Fed.R.Evid. 901 advisory comm. notes (explaining that "showing authenticity or identity *78 falls in the category of relevancy dependent upon fulfillment of a condition of fact and is governed by the procedure set forth in rule 104(b)"); O'Neal v. Esty, 637 F.2d 846, 850 (2d Cir.1980) (explaining the relationship between rule 901 and rule 104(b) under the Federal Rules of Evidence); see also State v. Silva, 2000 UT App 292, ¶¶ 16-19 , 13 P.3d 604 (distinguishing requirements for authentication under rule 901 from the more stringent constitutional requirements to determ | 2 | 2 |
O'Neal v. Morgangreen2 sentences2011R. 104(a), (b); see also Fed.R.Evid. 901 advisory comm. notes (explaining that "showing authenticity or identity *78 falls in the category of relevancy dependent upon fulfillment of a condition of fact and is governed by the procedure set forth in rule 104(b)"); O'Neal v. Esty, 637 F.2d 846, 850 (2d Cir.1980) (explaining the relationship between rule 901 and rule 104(b) under the Federal Rules of Evidence); see also State v. Silva, 2000 UT App 292, ¶¶ 16-19 , 13 P.3d 604 (distinguishing requirements for authentication under rule 901 from the more stringent constitutional requirements to determ 2011R. 104(a), (b); see also Fed.R.Evid. 901 advisory comm. notes (explaining that "showing authenticity or identi ty falls in the category of relevancy dependent upon fulfillment of a condition of fact and is governed by the procedure set forth in rule 104(b)"); O'Neal v. Esty, 637 F.2d 846, 850 (2d Cir.1980) (explaining the relationship between rule 901 and rule 104(b) under the Federal Rules of Evidence); see also State v. Silva, 2000 UT App 292, ¶¶ 16-19 , 13 P.3d 604 (distinguishing requirements for authentication under rule 901 from the more stringent constitutional requirements to determine | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Juan Carlos Puerta Restrepogreen2 sentences2011Particularly, "[t]he identity of a telephone caller may be established by self-identification of the caller coupled with additional evidence such as the context and timing of the telephone call, the contents of the statement challenged, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics, and disclosure of knowledge of facts known peculiarly to the caller." United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262, 1266 (9th Cir.1990), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Hanna, 293 F.3d 1080 , 1088 n. 5 (9th Cir.2002); see also State v. Rushton, 2003 UT App 25U, para. 4, 2003 WL 2 2011Particularly, "[the identity of a telephone caller may be established by self-identification of the caller coupled with additional evidence such as the context and timing of the telephone call, the contents of the statement challenged, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics, and disclosure of knowledge of facts known peculiarly to the caller." United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262, 1266 (9th Cir.1990), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Hanna, 293 F.3d 1080 , 1088 n. 5 (9th Cir.2002); see also State v. Rushton, 2003 UT App 25U, para. 4, 2008 WL 21 | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Alfredo Orozco-Santillangreen2 sentences2011Particularly, "[t]he identity of a telephone caller may be established by self-identification of the caller coupled with additional evidence such as the context and timing of the telephone call, the contents of the statement challenged, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics, and disclosure of knowledge of facts known peculiarly to the caller." United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262, 1266 (9th Cir.1990), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Hanna, 293 F.3d 1080 , 1088 n. 5 (9th Cir.2002); see also State v. Rushton, 2003 UT App 25U, para. 4, 2003 WL 2 2011Particularly, "[the identity of a telephone caller may be established by self-identification of the caller coupled with additional evidence such as the context and timing of the telephone call, the contents of the statement challenged, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics, and disclosure of knowledge of facts known peculiarly to the caller." United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262, 1266 (9th Cir.1990), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Hanna, 293 F.3d 1080 , 1088 n. 5 (9th Cir.2002); see also State v. Rushton, 2003 UT App 25U, para. 4, 2008 WL 21 | 2 | 2 |
J.M.W. v. T.I.Z.green2 sentences2014In re Adoption of Baby E.Z., 2011 UT 38, ¶ 31 , 266 P.3d 702 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 24 An example of this erucial distinction is found in the landmark case of Johnson v. Johnson, 2010 UT 28 , 234 P.3d 1100 -a case that the County fails to mention, even though the district court relied on it (and its progeny) in denying the motion to dismiss and Nebeker cited it extensively in support of his position that the Rhineer estate judgment was not void. 2014In re Adoption of Baby E.Z., 2011 UT 38, ¶ 31 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 20120269-CA 14 2014 UT App 244 Nebeker v. Summit County ¶24 An example of this crucial distinction is found in the landmark case of Johnson v. Johnson, 2010 UT 28 , 234 P.3d 1100— a case that the County fails to mention, even though the district court relied on it (and its progeny) in denying the motion to dismiss and Nebeker cited it extensively in support of his position that the Rhineer estate judgment was not void. | 1 | 1 |
McCormick v. Bechtolgreen1 sentence2012See *270 generally Johnson v. Johnson, 2010 UT 28, ¶ 9 , 234 P.3d 1100 ("'The concept of subject matter jurisdiction does not embrace all cases where the court's competence is at issue. 'Where the court has jurisdiction over the class of case involved, judgment is not void on the ground that the right involved in the suit did not embrace the relief granted.' Rather, the concept of subject matter jurisdiction relates to 'the relationship between the claim and the forum that allows for the exercise of jurisdiction.'" (citations omitted)), cert. denied, - U.S. --, 131 S.Ct. 656 , 178 L.Ed.2d 482 | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2012See *270 generally Johnson v. Johnson, 2010 UT 28, ¶ 9 , 234 P.3d 1100 ("'The concept of subject matter jurisdiction does not embrace all cases where the court's competence is at issue. 'Where the court has jurisdiction over the class of case involved, judgment is not void on the ground that the right involved in the suit did not embrace the relief granted.' Rather, the concept of subject matter jurisdiction relates to 'the relationship between the claim and the forum that allows for the exercise of jurisdiction.'" (citations omitted)), cert. denied, - U.S. --, 131 S.Ct. 656 , 178 L.Ed.2d 482 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Zebuel Jackson Hanna
green
2 sentences2011Particularly, "[t]he identity of a telephone caller may be established by self-identification of the caller coupled with additional evidence such as the context and timing of the telephone call, the contents of the statement challenged, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics, and disclosure of knowledge of facts known peculiarly to the caller." United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262, 1266 (9th Cir.1990), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Hanna, 293 F.3d 1080 , 1088 n. 5 (9th Cir.2002); see also State v. Rushton, 2003 UT App 25U, para. 4, 2003 WL 2 2011Particularly, "[the identity of a telephone caller may be established by self-identification of the caller coupled with additional evidence such as the context and timing of the telephone call, the contents of the statement challenged, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics, and disclosure of knowledge of facts known peculiarly to the caller." United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262, 1266 (9th Cir.1990), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Hanna, 293 F.3d 1080 , 1088 n. 5 (9th Cir.2002); see also State v. Rushton, 2003 UT App 25U, para. 4, 2008 WL 21 | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Jau-Fei Chen v. Stewart
green
2 sentences2011Consistent with these constitutional provisions, Utah statute gives district courts "original jurisdiction in all matters civil and eriminal, not excepted in the Utah Constitution and not prohibited by law." Utax Ann. § 78A-5-102(1) (Supp.2010). 1 31 "[The concept of subject matter jurisdiction relates to 'the relationship between the claim and the forum that allows for the exercise of jurisdiction." Johnson, 2010 UT 28, ¶ 9 , 234 P.3d 1100 (quoting Chen v. Stewart, 2004 UT 82, ¶ 35 , 100 P.3d 1177 ). 2011Consistent with these constitutional provisions, Utah statute gives district courts "original jurisdiction in all matters civil and eriminal, not excepted in the Utah Constitution and not prohibited by law." Utax Ann. § 78A-5-102(1) (Supp.2010). 1 31 "[The concept of subject matter jurisdiction relates to 'the relationship between the claim and the forum that allows for the exercise of jurisdiction." Johnson, 2010 UT 28, ¶ 9 , 234 P.3d 1100 (quoting Chen v. Stewart, 2004 UT 82, ¶ 35 , 100 P.3d 1177 ). | 2 | 2010–2011 |
Nebeker v. Summit County
green
1 sentence2014In re Adoption of Baby E.Z., 2011 UT 38, ¶ 31 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 20120269-CA 14 2014 UT App 244 Nebeker v. Summit County ¶24 An example of this crucial distinction is found in the landmark case of Johnson v. Johnson, 2010 UT 28 , 234 P.3d 1100— a case that the County fails to mention, even though the district court relied on it (and its progeny) in denying the motion to dismiss and Nebeker cited it extensively in support of his position that the Rhineer estate judgment was not void. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp.
green
2 sentences2014Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 2009 UT 2, ¶ 34 , 201 P.3d 966 , holding modified by Cent. 2014Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 2009 UT 2, ¶ 34 , 201 P.3d 966 , holding modified by Cent. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Barnard v. Wassermann
green
1 sentence2004Barnard, 855 P.2d at 248 . ¶ 36 One of the consequences of the non-waivable nature of subject matter jurisdiction is that attempts are sometimes made to mis-characterize other jurisdictional elements as defects in subject matter jurisdiction in order to revive an otherwise belated objection. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Gorostieta v. Parkinson
green
2 sentences2002T6 In Gorostieta v. Parkinson, 2000 UT 99 , 17 P.3d 1110 , the Utah Supreme Court considered the relationship between rule 3(a) and rule 3(F). 2002T6 In Gorostieta v. Parkinson, 2000 UT 99 , 17 P.3d 1110 , the Utah Supreme Court considered the relationship between rule 3(a) and rule 3(F). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
red
1 sentence1983But if, considered without regard to their federal or state character, a plaintiff’s claims are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding, then, assuming substantiality of the federal issues, there is power in federal courts to hear the whole. [Footnote omitted, emphasis in original.] Id. at 725, 86 S.Ct. at 1138 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.