14 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Child v. Gondagreen2 sentences2020And no more persuasive __________________________________________________________ 8 Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 61 provides that “[t]he court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” And “we will not reverse a judgment merely because there may have been error; reversal occurs only if the error is such that there is a reasonable likelihood that, in its absence, there would have been a result more favorable to the complaining party.” Child v. Gonda, 972 P.2d 425, 431 (Utah 1998). 18 Cite a 2019Because we hold that any such error would amount to harmless error, we affirm. 11 ¶34 Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(6) provides that "[e]xcept as limited by Rule 61, a new trial may be granted to any party on any issue" based on "insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision." Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 61, in turn, provides that "[t]he court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties." Furthermore, "we will not reverse a judgment merely because there may have | 1 | 2 |
Ross v. Epic Engineering, PCgreen2 sentences2015Further, any error in the district court's approach benefitted Kellin. 6 Cf. Ross v. Epic Eng'g, PC, 2018 UT App 136, ¶ 12 , 307 P.3d 576 (" 'The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which - does not affect the substantial rights of the parties? " (quoting Utah R. 2014See Ross v. Epic Eng'g, PC, 2013 UT App 136, ¶ 12 , 307 P.3d 576 (" 'The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties"" (quoting Utah R. | 1 | 2 |
RJW Media Inc. v. Heathgreen1 sentence2024Thus, “even if the trial court exceeded its discretion [in admitting testimony unsupported by adequate disclosures], an appellant has the burden to show that the error was substantial and prejudicial, meaning that the appellant was deprived in some manner of a full and fair consideration of the disputed issues by the trier of fact.” RJW Media, 2017 UT App 34, ¶ 33 (cleaned up). ¶35 Here, we detect no harm proceeding from the Appellees’ inadequate disclosures. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2019In any event, we determine that the record supports the trial court's conclusion that Kirkham's attorney was properly disqualified under Johnson . ¶43 The record here demonstrates "a reasonable possibility" that Kirkham's attorney committed "some specifically identifiable impropriety." Johnson , 823 P.2d at 490 (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
Springville Citizens for a Better Community v. City of Springvillegreen2 sentences2018See, e.g. , Springville Citizens , 1999 UT 25 , ¶ 31, 979 P.2d 332 (holding that a party challenging a land use decision must establish prejudice). 2018See, e.g. , Springville Citizens , 1999 UT 25 , ¶ 31, 979 P.2d 332 (holding that a party challenging a land use decision must establish prejudice). | 1 | 1 |
Whitehead v. American Motors Sales Corp.green1 sentence2014"While unduly harsh limitation of a key expert witness can amount to prejudicial error, the proper scope of cross-examination is within the sound discretion of 'the trial court and should not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse." Whitehead v. American Motors Sales Corp., 801 P.2d 920, 923-24 (Utah 1990); see also Perkins v. Fit-Well Artificial Limb Co., 80 Utah 2d 151 , 514 P.2d 811, 813 (1973) ("The trial judge is allowed a wide discretion in his control over the examination of witnesses-lay and expert alike."). %18 Third, Shannon contends that the trial court erred by denying her motion f | 1 | 1 |
Perkins v. Fit-Well Artificial Limb Co.green1 sentence2014"While unduly harsh limitation of a key expert witness can amount to prejudicial error, the proper scope of cross-examination is within the sound discretion of 'the trial court and should not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse." Whitehead v. American Motors Sales Corp., 801 P.2d 920, 923-24 (Utah 1990); see also Perkins v. Fit-Well Artificial Limb Co., 80 Utah 2d 151 , 514 P.2d 811, 813 (1973) ("The trial judge is allowed a wide discretion in his control over the examination of witnesses-lay and expert alike."). %18 Third, Shannon contends that the trial court erred by denying her motion f | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Utah Transit Authoritygreen2 sentences1990Harris v. Utah Transit Authority, 671 P.2d 217, 222-23 (Utah 1983). 1990Harris v. Utah Transit Authority, 671 P.2d 217, 222-23 (Utah 1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 10856411
neutral
1 sentence2026Here, Lisa has not persuaded 20240444-CA 20 2026 UT App 72 Wilson v. Wilson us that she was harmed by the court’s failure to consider extrinsic evidence with respect to timing. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10860140
green
1 sentence2026In deciding to excuse the Guardians’ untimely filing of their motion for attorney fees, the district court mentioned rule 61 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which states in part, “The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” But the court did not rest its excusal of the Guardians’ untimely filing on this rule, explaining that “if [r]ule 61 routinely was relied upon to excuse untimely filings[,] then the various deadlines set forth in the [r]ules would cease to have any effect. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Trapnell v. Legacy Resorts
green
2 sentences2020And no more persuasive __________________________________________________________ 8 Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 61 provides that “[t]he court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” And “we will not reverse a judgment merely because there may have been error; reversal occurs only if the error is such that there is a reasonable likelihood that, in its absence, there would have been a result more favorable to the complaining party.” Child v. Gonda, 972 P.2d 425, 431 (Utah 1998). 18 Cite a 2020Id. ¶65 Such is the case here. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Covey v. Covey
green
2 sentences2019P. 61 ("The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties."); Covey v. Covey , 2003 UT App 380 , ¶ 21, 80 P.3d 553 . 2019P. 61 ("The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties."); Covey v. Covey , 2003 UT App 380 , ¶ 21, 80 P.3d 553 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Goins
green
1 sentence2018P. 61 ("The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties."); State v. Goins , 2017 UT 61 , ¶ 48, --- P.3d ---- (noting, in the context of a criminal case, that an error warrants reversal only if it results in prejudice). ¶ 30 This requirement has long been extended to judicial review of land use decisions. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Markham v. Bradley
green
2 sentences2017"When reviewing the denial of a motion for involuntary dismissal [under rule 41(b) ], an appellate court should defer to the trial court's findings and inferences under a clearly erroneous standard and review the trial court's conclusions of law for correctness." Markham v. Bradley , 2007 UT App 379 , ¶ 13, 173 P.3d 865 . 2017"When reviewing the denial of a motion for involuntary dismissal [under rule 41(b) ], an appellate court should defer to the trial court's findings and inferences under a clearly erroneous standard and review the trial court's conclusions of law for correctness." Markham v. Bradley , 2007 UT App 379 , ¶ 13, 173 P.3d 865 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Fehr v. Stockton
green
1 sentence2015Further, any error in the district court's approach benefitted Kellin. 6 Cf. Ross v. Epic Eng'g, PC, 2018 UT App 136, ¶ 12 , 307 P.3d 576 (" 'The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which - does not affect the substantial rights of the parties? " (quoting Utah R. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Price v. Armour
green
2 sentences2015P. 61 ("The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties."). 17 . 949 P.2d at 1255-56 . 18 . 2015Id. 19 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
STEVENSEN 3RD EAST, LC v. Watts
green
2 sentences2014"In reviewing a jury verdict, we view the evidence in the light most supportive of the verdict[ ] and assume that the jury believed those aspects of the evidence which sustain its findings and judgment." Stevensen 3rd E., LC v. Watts, 2009 UT App 137, ¶ 26 , 210 P.3d 977 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2014"In reviewing a jury verdict, we view the evidence in the light most supportive of the verdict[ ] and assume that the jury believed those aspects of the evidence which sustain its findings and judgment." Stevensen 3rd E., LC v. Watts, 2009 UT App 137, ¶ 26 , 210 P.3d 977 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.