14 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harrington v. Richtergreen2 sentences2017See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 105 , 131 S.Ct. 770 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). ¶26 The State argues defense counsel’s performance was not deficient because “counsel had a sound strategic reason not to seek to admit the specific words of Teresa’s alleged threat.” Further, it argues defense counsel did not seek to admit the specific words of the threat because an “imaginary threat” could have had a greater impact on the jury than hearing the actual words. ¶ 27 We do not agree that this was a sound strategic reason for counsel’s actions. 2017See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011). ¶26 The State argues defense counsel’s performance was not deficient because ‚counsel had a sound strategic reason not to seek to admit the specific words of Teresa’s alleged threat.‛ Further, it argues defense counsel did not seek to admit the specific words of the threat because an ‚imaginary threat‛ could have had a greater impact on the jury than hearing the actual words. ¶27 We do not agree that this was a sound strategic reason for counsel’s actions. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andertongreen1 sentence2009Indeed, the State argues that the violation here "constituted nothing more than the failure to perform a ministerial act which did not affect the validity of the search warrant and the search conducted thereunder," see State v. Anderton, 668 P.2d 1258, 1262 (Utah 1983). 113 Federal circuits applying rule 41(c) of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure and state courts applying rules similar to that rule have addressed whether evidence obtained pursuant to warrants issued in violation of federal rule 41(c) should be excluded on a case-by-case basis. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McClendongreen2 sentences2003See State v. McClendon, 611 P.2d 728, 729 (Utah 1980). $19 The State argues that rule 22(a) requires only that the court affirmatively offer an opportunity to the defendant personally to address the court before sentencing and that defense counsel is presumed aware of the opportunity to address the court on behalf of his/her client. 2003See State v. McClendon, 611 P.2d 728, 729 (Utah 1980). ¶ 19 The State argues that rule 22(a) requires only that the court affirmatively offer an opportunity to the defendant personally to address the court before sentencing and that defense counsel is presumed aware of the opportunity to address the court on behalf of his/her client. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Parsonsgreen1 sentence1998In State v. Parsons, this court stated “[t]he general rule applicable in criminal pro *421 ceedings ... is that by pleading guilty, the defendant is deemed to have admitted all of the essential elements of the crime charged and thereby waives all nonjurisdictional defects.” 781 P.2d 1275, 1277 (Utah 1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Holgate
green
2 sentences2013We agree. ¶23 “As a general rule, claims not raised before the trial court may not be raised on appeal.” State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 11 , 10 P.3d 346 . 2013We agree. ¶23 “As a general rule, claims not raised before the trial court may not be raised on appeal.” State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 11 , 10 P.3d 346 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Brigham Young University v. Tremco Consultants, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Specifically, the State argues that the doctrine of claim preclusion bars Mr. Austin's motion to declare his rights under Utah Code section 78-30-4.14 (Supp.2007). ¶ 32 Res judicata "refer[s] to the overall doctrine of the preclusive effects to be given to judgments," and includes "two branches: claim preclusion and issue preclusion." Brigham Young Univ. v. Tremco Consultants, Inc., 2005 UT 19, ¶ 25 , 110 P.3d *1179 678 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2009Specifically, the State argues that the doctrine of claim preclusion bars Mr. Austin's motion to declare his rights under Utah Code section 78-80-4.14 (Supp.2007). 1382 Res judicata "refer[s]l to the overall doctrine of the preclusive effects to be given to judgments," and includes "two branches: claim preclusion and issue preclusion." Brigham Young Univ. v. Tremco Consultants, Inc., 2005 UT 19, ¶ 25 , 110 P.3d 678 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Candedo
green
1 sentence2018In particular, " rule 22(e) presupposes a valid conviction and therefore cannot be used as a veiled attempt to challenge the underlying conviction by challenging the sentence." Id. (quotation simplified). ¶7 The State argues that the error alleged by Lawson goes to the validity of his plea and conviction, not the legality of the sentence, and therefore is not cognizable under rule 22(e). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. Western Casualty & Surety Co.
green
1 sentence2018In National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. Western Casualty & Surety Co. , we considered a policy that excluded coverage for "bodily injury or property damages arising out of any premises, other than an insured premises, owned, rented, or controlled by any insured." 577 P.2d 961 , 962 (Utah 1978). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Graves v. North Eastern Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018Id. (citation omitted). ¶ 46 Fifth, the State argues for a standard other than proximate cause based on our interpretation of two insurance contracts. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Griffin
green
1 sentence2017State v. Griffin, 2015 UT 18, ¶ 19 , — P.3d -(citations omitted). ¶18 The State argues that the rule 23B allegations are speculative because Defendant “proffers no impeachment evidence that was available to [Attorney] that made impeachment possible.” We first note that Attorney’s failure to challenge the introduction of Cousin’s out-of-court statements allowed the State to present that evidence, which was harmful to the defense, without any attempt by Attorney to mitigate its effect—for example, by highlighting Cousin’s *932 other charges and plea deal. 4 But in any event, the focus on impeach | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Stephen Marvin Rome
green
1 sentence2009For example, in United States v. Rome, 809 F.2d 665 (10th Cir.1987), the peace officer and the magistrate had several telephone conversations during the course of an afternoon and evening. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Kelly
green
1 sentence1997The State directs our attention to State v. Calamity, 735 P.2d 39 (Utah 1987), and State v. Kelly, 718 P.2d 385 (Utah 1986), cases with facts the State claims are “analytically indistinguishable” from the case before us, as two examples of instances where we found implied waivers of Miranda rights. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Calamity
green
1 sentence1997The State directs our attention to State v. Calamity, 735 P.2d 39 (Utah 1987), and State v. Kelly, 718 P.2d 385 (Utah 1986), cases with facts the State claims are “analytically indistinguishable” from the case before us, as two examples of instances where we found implied waivers of Miranda rights. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Tison v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1997In Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 149 , 107 S.Ct. 1676, 1683 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987), the Court stated that to serve retributive goals of justice properly, “a criminal sentence must be directly related to the personal culpability of the criminal offender.” The State argues that this requirement is satisfied by section 76-5-103.5(2)(b)’s requirement of an intent to inflict serious bodily injury, which the State says provides “a direct relationship between the prisoner’s personal culpability and the possible imposition of the death penalty.” But the requirement that a punishment be “related to 1997In Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 149 , 107 S.Ct. 1676, 1683 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987), the Court stated that to serve retributive goals of justice properly, “a criminal sentence must be directly related to the personal culpability of the criminal offender.” The State argues that this requirement is satisfied by section 76-5-103.5(2)(b)’s requirement of an intent to inflict serious bodily injury, which the State says provides “a direct relationship between the prisoner’s personal culpability and the possible imposition of the death penalty.” But the requirement that a punishment be “related to | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Olsen v. DeLand
neutral
1 sentence1989Olsen v. DeLand, 739 P.2d 615 (Utah 1987). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.