14 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Loosleygreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., Loosley, 551 P.2d at 508 ("Therefore, if a debtor, acting in good faith, has substantially complied with the procedural requirements of the rule in such a manner that the [lien holder] is not injured or adversely affected, and is getting what he is entitled to, the law will not aid in depriving the [debtor] of his property for mere falling short of exact compliance with technicalities." (emphasis added)); Huston, 818 P.2d at 535 n.13 (quoting Loosley ). . 2011For example, in United States v. Loosley, 551 P.2d 506 (Utah 1976), the Utah Supreme Court considered the necessity for strict compliance and explained that if a debtor, acting in good faith, has substantially complied with the procedural requirements of the rule in such a manner that the lender mortgagee is not injured or adversely affected, and is getting what he is entitled to, the law will not aid in depriving the mortgagor of his property for mere falling short of exact compliance with technicalities. | 2 | 4 |
Langeland v. Monarch Motors, Inc.green2 sentences2013The penalty for delay or abuse is intentionally harsh, and parties who fail to comply with the procedural requirements of rule 36 should not lightly escape the consequences of the rule." Langeland v. Monarch Motors, Inc., 952 P.2d 1058, 1061 (Utah 1998). 2012The penalty for delay or abuse is intentionally harsh, and parties who fail to comply with the procedural requirements of rule 86 should not lightly escape the consequences of the rule." Id. | 1 | 4 |
Williamson v. Farrellgreen2 sentences2025See Williamson v. Farrell, 2019 UT App 123, ¶ 11 , 447 P.3d 131 (explaining that to establish the threshold elements for declaratory judgment actions “(1) there must be a justiciable controversy presented for resolution; (2) the parties to the action must have interests that are adverse; (3) the party seeking relief must have a legally protectible interest; and (4) the issues presented must be ripe for judicial determination” (cleaned up)). 2025See Williamson v. Farrell, 2019 UT App 123, ¶ 11 , 447 P.3d 131 (explaining that to establish the threshold elements for declaratory judgment actions “(1) there must be a justiciable controversy presented for resolution; (2) the parties to the action must have interests that are adverse; (3) the party seeking relief must have a legally protectible interest; and (4) the issues presented must be ripe for judicial determination” (cleaned up)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martingreen2 sentences2011Like the United States Supreme Court, our supreme court has approved the exclusion of this type of evidence under the rules of evidence, including rule 412, so long as the resulting "impingements upon a defendant's constitutional rights ... are not 'arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes [the rule is] designed to serve."" See State v. Tarrats 2005 UT 50, ¶ 36 , 122 P.3d 581 (quoting Stephens v. Miller, 18 F.3d 998, 1002 (7th Cir.1994)); see also State v. Martin (Martin II), 2002 UT 34 , ¶ 40 n. 5, 44 P.3d 805 (noting that sexual proclivity evidence "becomes admissible if it satisfies th 2011Like the United States Supreme Court, our supreme court has approved the exclusion of this type of evidence under the rules of evidence, including rule 412, so long as the resulting "impingements upon a defendant's constitutional rights ... are not 'arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes [the rule is] designed to serve."" See State v. Tarrats 2005 UT 50, ¶ 36 , 122 P.3d 581 (quoting Stephens v. Miller, 18 F.3d 998, 1002 (7th Cir.1994)); see also State v. Martin (Martin II), 2002 UT 34 , ¶ 40 n. 5, 44 P.3d 805 (noting that sexual proclivity evidence "becomes admissible if it satisfies th | 1 | 1 |
Springer v. Springergreen1 sentence2011The supreme court in Springer again acknowledged that substantial compliance with certain provisions of the redemption statute may be sufficient, stating that it "has allowed substantial compliance with the requirements of rule 69(f)(2), which prescribes the process by which redemption is made, but not with rule 69()(@[, which establishes the redemption period]." 853 P.2d at 891 (citation omitted). 3 Based upon this authority we conclude that the district court did not err by determining that the Olsen Trust need only substantially comply with the procedural requirements of rule 690(c). *1004 | 1 | 1 |
Neel v. Stategreen1 sentence1995Neel v. State, 854 P.2d 581, 585 (Utah Ct.App.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Tech-Fluid Services, Inc. v. Gavilan Operating, Inc.green1 sentence1991Loosley, 551 P.2d at 508 ; see abo Tech-Fluid Serv., 787 P.2d at 1332-34 ; Household Fin. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Central Utah Water Conservancy District v. King
green
2 sentences2014Replacing the references to “rule 3” with “rule 54(b)” in our Giusti decision illustrates this point: “[W]hile [rule 54(b)] provides the substantive requirement for [an interlocutory] decision’s finality . . . [rule 54(b)] does not eviscerate the procedural requirements of rule 7 for triggering the appeal period once a final decision is rendered.” Id. 2014Replacing the references to "rule 3" with "rule 54(b)" in our Giusti decision illustrates this point: "[WJhhile [rule 54(b)] provides the substantive requirement for [an interlocutory] decision's finality ... [rule 54(b) ] does not eviscerate the procedural requirements of rule 7 for triggering the appeal period onee a final decision is rendered." Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Huston v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2012See, e.g., Loosley, 551 P.2d at 508 ("Therefore, if a debtor, acting in good faith, has substantially complied with the procedural requirements of the rule in such a manner that the [lien holder] is not injured or adversely affected, and is getting what he is entitled to, the law will not aid in depriving the [debtor] of his property for mere falling short of exact compliance with technicalities." (emphasis added)); Huston, 818 P.2d at 535 n.13 (quoting Loosley ). . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Tarrats
green
2 sentences2011Like the United States Supreme Court, our supreme court has approved the exclusion of this type of evidence under the rules of evidence, including rule 412, so long as the resulting "impingements upon a defendant's constitutional rights ... are not 'arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes [the rule is] designed to serve."" See State v. Tarrats 2005 UT 50, ¶ 36 , 122 P.3d 581 (quoting Stephens v. Miller, 18 F.3d 998, 1002 (7th Cir.1994)); see also State v. Martin (Martin II), 2002 UT 34 , ¶ 40 n. 5, 44 P.3d 805 (noting that sexual proclivity evidence "becomes admissible if it satisfies th 2011Like the United States Supreme Court, our supreme court has approved the exclusion of this type of evidence under the rules of evidence, including rule 412, so long as the resulting "impingements upon a defendant's constitutional rights ... are not 'arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes [the rule is] designed to serve."" See State v. Tarrats 2005 UT 50, ¶ 36 , 122 P.3d 581 (quoting Stephens v. Miller, 18 F.3d 998, 1002 (7th Cir.1994)); see also State v. Martin (Martin II), 2002 UT 34 , ¶ 40 n. 5, 44 P.3d 805 (noting that sexual proclivity evidence "becomes admissible if it satisfies th | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Young v. State
green
2 sentences2003AFIE argues that the trial court properly awarded the expert fees as an element of fraud damages since Harrison, by committing fraud, made it necessary for AFIE to go to the extra expense of hiring the experts. "[A] trial court's decision to award the prevailing party its costs will be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." Young v. State, 2000 UT 91, ¶4 , 16 P.3d 549 (footnote and citations omitted). 2003AFIE argues that the trial court properly awarded the expert fees as an element of fraud damages since Harrison, by committing fraud, made it necessary for AFIE to go to the extra expense of hiring the experts. "[A] trial court's decision to award the prevailing party its costs will be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." Young v. State, 2000 UT 91, ¶4 , 16 P.3d 549 (footnote and citations omitted). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
City of Hildale v. Cooke
green
2 sentences2002Contractors v. Bd. of Oil, Gas & Mining, 2001 UT 112, n. 5 , 38 P.3d 291 ; State v. Bisner, 2001 UT 99, ¶ 39 , 37 P.3d 1073 ; City of Hildale v. Cooke, 2001 UT 56, ¶ 16 , 28 P.3d 697 . [5] However, such evidence becomes admissible if it satisfies the requirements of one of rule 412's specifically enumerated exceptions, the procedural requirements of that rule, and the other strictures of admissibility imposed by the Utah Rules of Evidence generally. 2002Contractors v. Bd. of Oil, Gas & Mining, 2001 UT 112, n. 5 , 38 P.3d 291 ; State v. Bisner, 2001 UT 99, ¶ 39 , 37 P.3d 1073 ; City of Hildale v. Cooke, 2001 UT 56, ¶ 16 , 28 P.3d 697 . [5] However, such evidence becomes admissible if it satisfies the requirements of one of rule 412's specifically enumerated exceptions, the procedural requirements of that rule, and the other strictures of admissibility imposed by the Utah Rules of Evidence generally. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Associated General Contractors v. Board of Oil, Gas & Mining
green
2 sentences2002Contractors v. Bd. of Oil, Gas & Mining, 2001 UT 112, n. 5 , 38 P.3d 291 ; State v. Bisner, 2001 UT 99, ¶ 39 , 37 P.3d 1073 ; City of Hildale v. Cooke, 2001 UT 56, ¶ 16 , 28 P.3d 697 . [5] However, such evidence becomes admissible if it satisfies the requirements of one of rule 412's specifically enumerated exceptions, the procedural requirements of that rule, and the other strictures of admissibility imposed by the Utah Rules of Evidence generally. 2002Contractors v. Bd. of Oil, Gas & Mining, 2001 UT 112, n. 5 , 38 P.3d 291 ; State v. Bisner, 2001 UT 99, ¶ 39 , 37 P.3d 1073 ; City of Hildale v. Cooke, 2001 UT 56, ¶ 16 , 28 P.3d 697 . [5] However, such evidence becomes admissible if it satisfies the requirements of one of rule 412's specifically enumerated exceptions, the procedural requirements of that rule, and the other strictures of admissibility imposed by the Utah Rules of Evidence generally. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Bisner
green
2 sentences2002Contractors v. Bd. of Oil, Gas & Mining, 2001 UT 112, n. 5 , 38 P.3d 291 ; State v. Bisner, 2001 UT 99, ¶ 39 , 37 P.3d 1073 ; City of Hildale v. Cooke, 2001 UT 56, ¶ 16 , 28 P.3d 697 . [5] However, such evidence becomes admissible if it satisfies the requirements of one of rule 412's specifically enumerated exceptions, the procedural requirements of that rule, and the other strictures of admissibility imposed by the Utah Rules of Evidence generally. 2002Contractors v. Bd. of Oil, Gas & Mining, 2001 UT 112, n. 5 , 38 P.3d 291 ; State v. Bisner, 2001 UT 99, ¶ 39 , 37 P.3d 1073 ; City of Hildale v. Cooke, 2001 UT 56, ¶ 16 , 28 P.3d 697 . [5] However, such evidence becomes admissible if it satisfies the requirements of one of rule 412's specifically enumerated exceptions, the procedural requirements of that rule, and the other strictures of admissibility imposed by the Utah Rules of Evidence generally. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.