core principle in Utah

2022Nevertheless, our subsequent case law and the entirety of this opinion demonstrate how the core principle articulated in Thorne—the need to shield the jury from outside influences likely to affect their judgment—applies more broadly to all criminal cases where a jury must decide ―the personal liberty of individuals charged with offenses.‖ Anderson, 237 P. at 944 . ¶25 To protect this paramount right to an untainted jury, this court also has long recognized that improper influences on a jury need not be intentional or even perceived by the jury.

2021A judicial organization; a judicature; a court, or series of courts, of justice.‖); Jurisdiction, OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY (1980) (defining jurisdiction as: ―1. authority to interpret and apply the law. 2. official power exercised within a particular (continued . . .) 26 Cite as: 2021 UT 52 Opinion of the Court ¶81 Although the 1984 amendment changed the constitutional language, the core principle has been present since the people of Utah originally adopted their constitution.

2018Mr. Fullerton was Not in Custody Under Miranda ¶27 Having set out the applicable standard for determining whether an individual is in custody for the purposes of Miranda , we turn to the core inquiry here-whether, based on "all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation," "a reasonable person [in Mr. Fullerton's position] [would] have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." Howes , 565 U.S. at 509 , 132 S.Ct. 1181 (second alteration in original) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶28 Mr. Fullerton does not present a challenge un

2018Mr. Fullerton was Not in Custody Under Miranda ¶27 Having set out the applicable standard for determining whether an individual is in custody for the purposes of Miranda , we turn to the core inquiry here-whether, based on "all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation," "a reasonable person [in Mr. Fullerton's position] [would] have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." Howes , 565 U.S. at 509 , 132 S.Ct. 1181 (second alteration in original) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶28 Mr. Fullerton does not present a challenge un

2016But even as amended, the statute seems to retain the core principle—the statement that “this comprehensive chapter . . . governs all claims against governmental entities.” UTAH CODE § 63G-7-101 (2015). 8 Cite as: 2016 UT 40 Opinion of the Court application of other laws regulating claims against non- governmental parties. ¶23 The Act speaks in careful detail on the manner of filing a notice of claim with a governmental entity, see UTAH CODE § 63G-7-402; on the means of initiating an action in court after such a claim is denied, see id. §§ 63G-7-403 & -601; and on the timing requirements for bo

2008Details that are unnoticed or passed by in oral discussion will be pinned down when the understanding is reduced to writing.’” Id. ¶ 23 (quoting Winston v. Mediafare Entm’t Corp., 777 F.2d 78, 82 (2d Cir.1986)). ¶ 14 A core principle of mediation is the notion of party autonomy, founded on the belief that the parties in conflict are best suited to resolve their dispute in a way that fits their needs and interests.

2008Without the applicable standard of care, it was impossible for the district court to determine the degree to which the ski resort’s conduct deviated from the standard of care — “the core test in any claim of gross negligence.” Id.

2008Thus, we held that a district court cannot properly grant a motion for summary judgment regarding a gross negligence claim unless there is “an identified, applicable standard of care to ground the analysis.” Id. ¶ 26 The present case is very similar to Berry .

2002"The core inquiry in a Fourth Amendment analysis is 'whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched." Id. (quoting United States v. Bilanzich, 771 F.2d 292, 296 (7th Cir.1985)).

1995That principle is one of those essential principles of fundamental fairness without which a "fair and enlightened system of justice would be impossible." Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 , 58 S.Ct. 149, 152 , 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937), overruled on unrelated part, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 795 , 89 S.Ct. 2056, 2063 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969).

1995That principle is one of those essential principles of fundamental fairness without which a "fair and enlightened system of justice would be impossible." Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 , 58 S.Ct. 149, 152 , 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937), overruled on unrelated part, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 795 , 89 S.Ct. 2056, 2063 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969).

1995That principle is one of those essential principles of fundamental fairness without which a "fair and enlightened system of justice would be impossible." Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 , 58 S.Ct. 149, 152 , 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937), overruled on unrelated part, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 795 , 89 S.Ct. 2056, 2063 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969).

1995That principle is one of those essential principles of fundamental fairness without which a "fair and enlightened system of justice would be impossible." Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 , 58 S.Ct. 149, 152 , 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937), overruled on unrelated part, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 795 , 89 S.Ct. 2056, 2063 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969).