14 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1950–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Salt Lake City v. Dorman-Lighgreen1 sentence2020But we agree with Smith that this language did not effectively enjoin Smith from working for former clients, because the language appearing under the heading “PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER” enjoined him only from soliciting former clients and enjoined contact only with respect to current clients. 20180488-CA 12 2020 UT App 57 Cook Martin Poulson v. Smith ¶26 This court has determined that “to hold one in contempt of an order, that order must be clearly understood to be an order.” Salt Lake City v. Dorman-Ligh, 912 P.2d 452, 455 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hershbergergreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., Miller, 549 N.W.2d at 241 ("`[W]hile the terms "compelling state interest" and "least restrictive alternative" are creatures of federal doctrine, concepts embodied therein can provide guidance as we seek to strike a balance under the [state] Constitution between freedom of conscience and the state's public safety interest.'" (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn.1990)); see also Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th 527 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 283 , 85 P.3d 67, 91 (2004) (holding that the petitioner's claim w | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whittinghamgreen2 sentences2006These legislative determinations are not necessarily absurd or unreasonable; but they are subject to empirical refutation in a way that `intentional killing is bad' is not."). [16] Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1224 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006) (recognizing in a preliminary injunction analysis of an RFRA statutory claim that the government had failed to show that its interest in protecting public health and safety was served by applying a law criminalizing use of hoasca, a hallucinogenic controlled substance, to those who use the dr 2006These legislative determinations are not necessarily absurd or unreasonable; but they are subject to empirical refutation in a way that `intentional killing is bad' is not."). [16] Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1224 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006) (recognizing in a preliminary injunction analysis of an RFRA statutory claim that the government had failed to show that its interest in protecting public health and safety was served by applying a law criminalizing use of hoasca, a hallucinogenic controlled substance, to those who use the dr | 1 | 1 |
Hunt v. Huntgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Miller, 549 N.W.2d at 241 ("`[W]hile the terms "compelling state interest" and "least restrictive alternative" are creatures of federal doctrine, concepts embodied therein can provide guidance as we seek to strike a balance under the [state] Constitution between freedom of conscience and the state's public safety interest.'" (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn.1990)); see also Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th 527 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 283 , 85 P.3d 67, 91 (2004) (holding that the petitioner's claim w 2006See, e.g., Miller, 549 N.W.2d at 241 ("`[W]hile the terms "compelling state interest" and "least restrictive alternative" are creatures of federal doctrine, concepts embodied therein can provide guidance as we seek to strike a balance under the [state] Constitution between freedom of conscience and the state's public safety interest.'" (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn.1990)); see also Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th 527 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 283 , 85 P.3d 67, 91 (2004) (holding that the petitioner's claim w | 1 | 1 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2006These legislative determinations are not necessarily absurd or unreasonable; but they are subject to empirical refutation in a way that `intentional killing is bad' is not."). [16] Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1224 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006) (recognizing in a preliminary injunction analysis of an RFRA statutory claim that the government had failed to show that its interest in protecting public health and safety was served by applying a law criminalizing use of hoasca, a hallucinogenic controlled substance, to those who use the dr 2006These legislative determinations are not necessarily absurd or unreasonable; but they are subject to empirical refutation in a way that `intentional killing is bad' is not."). [16] Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1224 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006) (recognizing in a preliminary injunction analysis of an RFRA statutory claim that the government had failed to show that its interest in protecting public health and safety was served by applying a law criminalizing use of hoasca, a hallucinogenic controlled substance, to those who use the dr | 1 | 1 |
Frank v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Untiao Do Vegetal, -- U.S. --, --, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1224 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006) (recognizing in a preliminary injunction analysis of an RFRA statutory claim that the government had failed to show that its interest in protecting public health and safety was served by applying a law criminalizing use of hoasca, a hallucinogenic controlled substance, to those who use the drug in religious ceremonies); Frank v. State, 604 P.2d 1068, 1073-74 (Alaska 1979) (exempting the defendant under federal and state religious freedom guarantees from criminal prosecuti 2006These legislative determinations are not necessarily absurd or unreasonable; but they are subject to empirical refutation in a way that `intentional killing is bad' is not."). [16] Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1224 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006) (recognizing in a preliminary injunction analysis of an RFRA statutory claim that the government had failed to show that its interest in protecting public health and safety was served by applying a law criminalizing use of hoasca, a hallucinogenic controlled substance, to those who use the dr | 1 | 1 |
People v. Woodygreen2 sentences2006These legislative determinations are not necessarily absurd or unreasonable; but they are subject to empirical refutation in a way that `intentional killing is bad' is not."). [16] Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1224 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006) (recognizing in a preliminary injunction analysis of an RFRA statutory claim that the government had failed to show that its interest in protecting public health and safety was served by applying a law criminalizing use of hoasca, a hallucinogenic controlled substance, to those who use the dr 2006These legislative determinations are not necessarily absurd or unreasonable; but they are subject to empirical refutation in a way that `intentional killing is bad' is not."). [16] Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1224 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006) (recognizing in a preliminary injunction analysis of an RFRA statutory claim that the government had failed to show that its interest in protecting public health and safety was served by applying a law criminalizing use of hoasca, a hallucinogenic controlled substance, to those who use the dr | 1 | 1 |
Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Miller, 549 N.W.2d at 241 ("`[W]hile the terms "compelling state interest" and "least restrictive alternative" are creatures of federal doctrine, concepts embodied therein can provide guidance as we seek to strike a balance under the [state] Constitution between freedom of conscience and the state's public safety interest.'" (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn.1990)); see also Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th 527 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 283 , 85 P.3d 67, 91 (2004) (holding that the petitioner's claim w 2006See, e.g., Miller, 549 N.W.2d at 241 ("`[W]hile the terms "compelling state interest" and "least restrictive alternative" are creatures of federal doctrine, concepts embodied therein can provide guidance as we seek to strike a balance under the [state] Constitution between freedom of conscience and the state's public safety interest.'" (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn.1990)); see also Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th 527 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 283 , 85 P.3d 67, 91 (2004) (holding that the petitioner's claim w | 1 | 1 |
Watkiss & Campbell v. Foa & Songreen1 sentence1994See, e.g., Watkiss & Campbell v. Foa & Son, 808 P.2d 1061, 1064-65 (Utah 1991) (title on motion or order not dispositive of content). 2 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kelly v. Timber Lakes Property
green
2 sentences2022But the court allowed Kelly’s remaining claims for damages against Timber Lakes, premised on theories 20191079-CA 7 2022 UT App 23 Kelly v. Timber Lakes of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and entitlement to an accounting, to go forward. ¶16 Around that same time, Kelly also moved for leave to amend his complaint for a second time to add a claim against Timber Lakes for failure to comply with applicable statutes, specifically Utah Code sections 57-1-24 to -26 governing nonjudicial foreclosure of trust deeds. 2022But the court allowed Kelly’s remaining claims for damages against Timber Lakes, premised on theories 20191079-CA 7 2022 UT App 23 Kelly v. Timber Lakes of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and entitlement to an accounting, to go forward. ¶16 Around that same time, Kelly also moved for leave to amend his complaint for a second time to add a claim against Timber Lakes for failure to comply with applicable statutes, specifically Utah Code sections 57-1-24 to -26 governing nonjudicial foreclosure of trust deeds. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
VAN DUSEN v. WASATCH COUNTY
neutral
1 sentence2026The court reaffirmed its belief that its prior ruling was “correct in light of the undisputed 4 Cite as: 2026 UT 1 Opinion of the Court facts in this matter and the controlling caselaw.” But the court also reiterated its “sliding scale” approach to the injunction factors, explaining that a weaker showing on one factor may suffice when the remaining factors strongly favor relief. ¶16 The district court concluded that the equities weighed “heavily in favor of the injunction.” Because those factors strongly favored relief, the court held that, as to the likelihood of success on the merits, it was | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Cook Martin Poulson v. Smith
green
1 sentence2020But we agree with Smith that this language did not effectively enjoin Smith from working for former clients, because the language appearing under the heading “PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER” enjoined him only from soliciting former clients and enjoined contact only with respect to current clients. 20180488-CA 12 2020 UT App 57 Cook Martin Poulson v. Smith ¶26 This court has determined that “to hold one in contempt of an order, that order must be clearly understood to be an order.” Salt Lake City v. Dorman-Ligh, 912 P.2d 452, 455 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Wynn
green
2 sentences2019State v. Wynn, 2017 UT App 211, ¶ 11 , 407 P.3d 1113 . 2019State v. Wynn, 2017 UT App 211, ¶ 11 , 407 P.3d 1113 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Smith v. Simas
neutral
1 sentence2019Smith, 2014 UT App 78, ¶ 16 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Tangren Family Trust v. Tangren
green
1 sentence2016The hearing was focused on discerning what had occurred and been ordered by the Nevada court, as well as the fly-in activities 20140938-CA 12 2016 UT App 163 Tangren Family Trust v. Tangren and the associated need for liability insurance. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Arbogast Family Trust v. River Crossings, LLC
green
2 sentences2016We believe that Arbogast Family Trust v. River Crossings, LLC, 2010 UT 40 , 238 P.3d 1035 , in defining a bright-line rule, is controlling authority and mandates the result in this case. 2016We believe that Arbogast Family Trust v. River Crossings, LLC, 2010 UT 40 , 238 P.3d 1035 , in defining a bright-line rule, is controlling authority and mandates the result in this case. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Johnson v. Hermes Associates, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2015Johnson, 2005 UT 82, ¶ 13 , 128 P.3d 1151 (listing the requirements for a permanent injunction); Water & Energy Sys., 1999 UT 16 , ¶ ¶ 8, 14, 974 P.2d 821 (party seeking an, "injunction heals the burden of proof). ~- E. - Inconsistent Testimony T92 On appeal, Inno§Sys contends that summary judgment on the injunction claim was inappropriate because it alleges Ms. Mercer gave false sworn testimony during a hearing on her unemployment benefits claim. 2015Johnson, 2005 UT 82, ¶ 13 , 128 P.3d 1151 (listing the requirements for a permanent injunction); Water & Energy Sys., 1999 UT 16 , ¶ ¶ 8, 14, 974 P.2d 821 (party seeking an, "injunction heals the burden of proof). ~- E. - Inconsistent Testimony T92 On appeal, Inno§Sys contends that summary judgment on the injunction claim was inappropriate because it alleges Ms. Mercer gave false sworn testimony during a hearing on her unemployment benefits claim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Water & Energy Systems Technology, Inc. v. Keil
green
2 sentences2015Johnson, 2005 UT 82, ¶ 13 , 128 P.3d 1151 (listing the requirements for a permanent injunction); Water & Energy Sys., 1999 UT 16 , ¶ ¶ 8, 14, 974 P.2d 821 (party seeking an, "injunction heals the burden of proof). ~- E. - Inconsistent Testimony T92 On appeal, Inno§Sys contends that summary judgment on the injunction claim was inappropriate because it alleges Ms. Mercer gave false sworn testimony during a hearing on her unemployment benefits claim. 2015Johnson, 2005 UT 82, ¶ 13 , 128 P.3d 1151 (listing the requirements for a permanent injunction); Water & Energy Sys., 1999 UT 16 , ¶ ¶ 8, 14, 974 P.2d 821 (party seeking an, "injunction heals the burden of proof). ~- E. - Inconsistent Testimony T92 On appeal, Inno§Sys contends that summary judgment on the injunction claim was inappropriate because it alleges Ms. Mercer gave false sworn testimony during a hearing on her unemployment benefits claim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Carrier v. Lindquist
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Bailey v. Bayles
green
2 sentences2013The court stated, "While individually they don't add up to much, I'm concerned about ... the quantity of them." In any event, we can affirm the district court's injunction on any grounds apparent to us from the record, see Bailey v. Bayles, 2002 UT 58, ¶¶ 9-12 , 52 P.3d 1158 , and the relevant stalking statute does not require myriad contacts but only two or more, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (1)(b). 2013The court stated, "While individually they don't add up to much, I'm concerned about ... the quantity of them." In any event, we can affirm the district court's injunction on any grounds apparent to us from the record, see Bailey v. Bayles, 2002 UT 58, ¶¶ 9-12 , 52 P.3d 1158 , and the relevant stalking statute does not require myriad contacts but only two or more, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (1)(b). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União Do Vegetal
green
2 sentences2006These legislative determinations are not necessarily absurd or unreasonable; but they are subject to empirical refutation in a way that `intentional killing is bad' is not."). [16] Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1224 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006) (recognizing in a preliminary injunction analysis of an RFRA statutory claim that the government had failed to show that its interest in protecting public health and safety was served by applying a law criminalizing use of hoasca, a hallucinogenic controlled substance, to those who use the dr 2006These legislative determinations are not necessarily absurd or unreasonable; but they are subject to empirical refutation in a way that `intentional killing is bad' is not."). [16] Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1224 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006) (recognizing in a preliminary injunction analysis of an RFRA statutory claim that the government had failed to show that its interest in protecting public health and safety was served by applying a law criminalizing use of hoasca, a hallucinogenic controlled substance, to those who use the dr | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Rupert v. City of Portland
green
1 sentence2006See, e.g., Miller, 549 N.W.2d at 241 ("`[W]hile the terms "compelling state interest" and "least restrictive alternative" are creatures of federal doctrine, concepts embodied therein can provide guidance as we seek to strike a balance under the [state] Constitution between freedom of conscience and the state's public safety interest.'" (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn.1990)); see also Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th 527 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 283 , 85 P.3d 67, 91 (2004) (holding that the petitioner's claim w | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Ward v. Richfield City
green
1 sentence1989Section 10-3-911 stated in part that “[t]he chief of police or fire department of the cities may at any time be removed, without a trial, hearing or opportunity to be heard, by the board of commissioners whenever in its opinion the good of the service will be served thereby.” Ward appealed the trial court’s decision to the Utah Supreme Court and the court decided in Ward v. Richfield City, 716 P.2d 265 (Utah 1984), that the trial court did have jurisdiction because section 10-3-911 did not pertain to third class cities. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Norback v. Board of Directors of Church Extension Soc.
green
2 sentences1950In so ruling, the court apparently relied upon Norback v. Board of Directors of Church Extension Society, 84 Utah 506 , 37 P.2d 339, 345 , where the rule was laid down that "If the issues are legal or the major issue legal, either party is entitled upon proper *225 demand to a jury trial; but, if the issues are equitable or the major issues to be resolved by an application of equity, the legal issues being merely subsidiary, the action should be regarded as equitable and the rules of equity apply." In that case suit was brought by the plaintiff to establish a claimed easement based upon an all 1950In so ruling, the court apparently relied upon Norback v. Board of Directors of Church Extension Society, 84 Utah 506 , 37 P.2d 339, 345 , where the rule was laid down that "If the issues are legal or the major issue legal, either party is entitled upon proper *225 demand to a jury trial; but, if the issues are equitable or the major issues to be resolved by an application of equity, the legal issues being merely subsidiary, the action should be regarded as equitable and the rules of equity apply." In that case suit was brought by the plaintiff to establish a claimed easement based upon an all | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.