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.
14 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re State in Interest of Jpgreen2 sentences2003See id. at 1016 . ¶ 9 Here, following the disposition of Parents' first appeal, Parents submitted to the trial court a motion for a new trial accompanied by affidavits from two expert witnesses. [2] These experts, after reviewing portions of the available evidence and reports, concluded that K.M.'s injuries were not indicative of inflicted trauma. 2003See id. at 1016 . 19 Here, following the disposition of Parents' first appeal, Parents submitted to the trial court a motion for a new trial ace-companied by affidavits from two expert witnesses. 2 These experts, after reviewing portions of the available evidence and reports, concluded that K.M.'s injuries were not indicative of inflicted trauma. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jaramillogreen2 sentences2018See State v. Jaramillo , 2016 UT App 70 , ¶¶ 41-42, 372 P.3d 34 (presuming that a court considers the factors presented to it regarding a defendant's potential for rehabilitation). 2018See State v. Jaramillo , 2016 UT App 70 , ¶¶ 41-42, 372 P.3d 34 (presuming that a court considers the factors presented to it regarding a defendant's potential for rehabilitation). | 1 | 1 |
Childs v. Childsgreen1 sentence2008Where a trial court considers these factors, we will disturb its alimony award only if there is " 'a serious inequity ... manifest[ing] a clear abuse of discretion."" Kelley v. Kelley, 2000 UT App 236, ¶26 , 9 P.3d 171 (quoting Childs v. Childs, 967 P.2d 942, 946 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Hanson v. Dencklagreen1 sentence2004See id. (citing Neways, Inc. v. McCausland, 950 P.2d 420, 423 (Utah 1997)). | 1 | 1 |
Neways, Inc. v. McCauslandgreen1 sentence2004See id. (citing Neways, Inc. v. McCausland, 950 P.2d 420, 423 (Utah 1997)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wheeler v. McPherson
green
2 sentences2020And in response to this argument, the district court did not need to consider any materials outside the pleadings. ¶29 But the Counties argue that the court’s failure to consider evidence regarding the tax cases constituted reversible error because our case law suggests that where a court considers a rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, it “should consider materials outside the pleadings, including supplemental factual allegations to determine whether any set of facts support the cause of action pled.” The Counties’ reliance on the cited case law is misplaced. ¶30 The Counties cite four cases in s 2020And in response to this argument, the district court did not need to consider any materials outside the pleadings. ¶29 But the Counties argue that the court’s failure to consider evidence regarding the tax cases constituted reversible error because our case law suggests that where a court considers a rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, it “should consider materials outside the pleadings, including supplemental factual allegations to determine whether any set of facts support the cause of action pled.” The Counties’ reliance on the cited case law is misplaced. ¶30 The Counties cite four cases in s | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Spoons v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2020And in response to this argument, the district court did not need to consider any materials outside the pleadings. ¶29 But the Counties argue that the court’s failure to consider evidence regarding the tax cases constituted reversible error because our case law suggests that where a court considers a rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, it “should consider materials outside the pleadings, including supplemental factual allegations to determine whether any set of facts support the cause of action pled.” The Counties’ reliance on the cited case law is misplaced. ¶30 The Counties cite four cases in s 2020And in response to this argument, the district court did not need to consider any materials outside the pleadings. ¶29 But the Counties argue that the court’s failure to consider evidence regarding the tax cases constituted reversible error because our case law suggests that where a court considers a rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, it “should consider materials outside the pleadings, including supplemental factual allegations to determine whether any set of facts support the cause of action pled.” The Counties’ reliance on the cited case law is misplaced. ¶30 The Counties cite four cases in s | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Coombs v. Juice Works Development, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020And in response to this argument, the district court did not need to consider any materials outside the pleadings. ¶29 But the Counties argue that the court’s failure to consider evidence regarding the tax cases constituted reversible error because our case law suggests that where a court considers a rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, it “should consider materials outside the pleadings, including supplemental factual allegations to determine whether any set of facts support the cause of action pled.” The Counties’ reliance on the cited case law is misplaced. ¶30 The Counties cite four cases in s 2020And in response to this argument, the district court did not need to consider any materials outside the pleadings. ¶29 But the Counties argue that the court’s failure to consider evidence regarding the tax cases constituted reversible error because our case law suggests that where a court considers a rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, it “should consider materials outside the pleadings, including supplemental factual allegations to determine whether any set of facts support the cause of action pled.” The Counties’ reliance on the cited case law is misplaced. ¶30 The Counties cite four cases in s | 1 | 2020–2020 |
America West Bank Members L.C. v. State
green
2 sentences2020And in response to this argument, the district court did not need to consider any materials outside the pleadings. ¶29 But the Counties argue that the court’s failure to consider evidence regarding the tax cases constituted reversible error because our case law suggests that where a court considers a rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, it “should consider materials outside the pleadings, including supplemental factual allegations to determine whether any set of facts support the cause of action pled.” The Counties’ reliance on the cited case law is misplaced. ¶30 The Counties cite four cases in s 2020And in response to this argument, the district court did not need to consider any materials outside the pleadings. ¶29 But the Counties argue that the court’s failure to consider evidence regarding the tax cases constituted reversible error because our case law suggests that where a court considers a rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, it “should consider materials outside the pleadings, including supplemental factual allegations to determine whether any set of facts support the cause of action pled.” The Counties’ reliance on the cited case law is misplaced. ¶30 The Counties cite four cases in s | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Laycock
green
2 sentences2019State v. Laycock , 2009 UT 53 , ¶ 28, 214 P.3d 104 . 2019State v. Laycock , 2009 UT 53 , ¶ 28, 214 P.3d 104 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2017Id. § 302(5)(c). ¶ 11 In other words, court-ordered restitution is "a subset of complete restitution that, among other things, takes into account the defendant's circumstances." State v. Brown , 2014 UT 48 , ¶ 21, 342 P.3d 239 . ¶ 12 Although the Restitution Act clearly requires a district court to make separate findings for the different kinds of restitution, courts often merge them into one order. 2 This is error. 2017Id. § 302(5)(c). ¶ 11 In other words, court-ordered restitution is "a subset of complete restitution that, among other things, takes into account the defendant's circumstances." State v. Brown , 2014 UT 48 , ¶ 21, 342 P.3d 239 . ¶ 12 Although the Restitution Act clearly requires a district court to make separate findings for the different kinds of restitution, courts often merge them into one order. 2 This is error. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Gray
green
1 sentence2016I see no basis for an additional requirement or suggestion that the sentencing court consider the Board’s role in 20140027-CA 34 2016 UT App 87 State v. Gray monitoring an inmate’s rehabilitative progress with the potential for early release in mind. ¶52 Of course the Board does serve that role. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Connell v. Connell
green
2 sentences2013"If a trial court considers these factors in setting an award of alimony, we will not disturb its award absent a showing that such a serious inequity has resulted as to manifest a clear abuse of discretion." Connell, 2010 UT App 139, ¶9 , 233 P.3d 836 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2013"If a trial court considers these factors in setting an award of alimony, we will not disturb its award absent a showing that such a serious inequity has resulted as to manifest a clear abuse of discretion." Connell, 2010 UT App 139, ¶9 , 233 P.3d 836 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Nguyen
green
2 sentences2012Here, "the trial court made detailed written findings of fact on [the factors required by section 76-5-411 and rule 15.5] and concluded that [A. H.]'s interview was reliable and that the interest of justice would best be served by its admission." State v. Nguyen, 2011 UT App 2, ¶ 11 , 246 P.3d 535 . 2012Here, "the trial court made detailed written findings of fact on [the factors required by section 76-5-411 and rule 15.5] and concluded that [A. H.]'s interview was reliable and that the interest of justice would best be served by its admission." State v. Nguyen, 2011 UT App 2, ¶ 11 , 246 P.3d 535 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Bakanowski v. Bakanowski
green
2 sentences2010"If a trial court considers these factors in setting an award of alimony, we will not disturb its award absent a showing that such a serious inequity has resulted as to manifest a clear abuse of discretion." Bakanowski, 2003 UT App 357, ¶ 10 , 80 P.3d 153 (internal quotation marks omitted). 110 Wife contends that the trial court's decision to terminate alimony and deny future alimony was based on three subsidiary errors by the trial court: (1) failure to adequately consider all of the mandatory statutory factors; (2) failure to impute Husband's higher historical income to him; and (3) failure 2010"If a trial court considers these factors in setting an award of alimony, we will not disturb its award absent a showing that such a serious inequity has resulted as to manifest a clear abuse of discretion." Bakanowski, 2003 UT App 357, ¶ 10 , 80 P.3d 153 (internal quotation marks omitted). 110 Wife contends that the trial court's decision to terminate alimony and deny future alimony was based on three subsidiary errors by the trial court: (1) failure to adequately consider all of the mandatory statutory factors; (2) failure to impute Husband's higher historical income to him; and (3) failure | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Kelley v. Kelley
green
2 sentences2008Where a trial court considers these factors, we will disturb its alimony award only if there is " 'a serious inequity ... manifest[ing] a clear abuse of discretion."" Kelley v. Kelley, 2000 UT App 236, ¶26 , 9 P.3d 171 (quoting Childs v. Childs, 967 P.2d 942, 946 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2008Where a trial court considers these factors, we will disturb its alimony award only if there is " 'a serious inequity ... manifest[ing] a clear abuse of discretion."" Kelley v. Kelley, 2000 UT App 236, ¶26 , 9 P.3d 171 (quoting Childs v. Childs, 967 P.2d 942, 946 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Noble v. Noble
green
1 sentence1990Munns, 790 P.2d at 121 ; Noble, 761 P.2d at 1372 . *424 If the trial court considers these factors in setting an award of alimony, we will not disturb its award absent a showing that such a serious inequity has resulted as to manifest a clear abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Schindler v. Schindler
green
2 sentences1990Id. 1990Id. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Munns v. Munns
green
2 sentences1990Munns, 790 P.2d at 121 ; Noble, 761 P.2d at 1372 . *424 If the trial court considers these factors in setting an award of alimony, we will not disturb its award absent a showing that such a serious inequity has resulted as to manifest a clear abuse of discretion. 1990Munns, 790 P.2d at 121 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.