521 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1927–2026 105 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Larsengreen2 sentences2018"When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether [the] defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law." Layton City v. Carr , 2014 UT App 227 , ¶ 6, 336 P.3d 587 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶18 Third, Aziz contends the district court erred when it limited the scope of Expert's testimony. 6 District courts have "wide discretion in determining the admissibility of expert testimony, and such decisions are revi 2014"The trial court has wide discretion in determining the admissibility of expert testimony, and such decisions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Larsen, 865 P.2d 1355, 1361 (Utah 1993). | 19 | 21 |
Dixie State Bank v. Brackengreen2 sentences2019Likewise, the district court "has broad discretion in determining what constitutes a reasonable fee, and we will consider that determination against an abuse-of-discretion standard." Dixie State Bank v. Bracken , 764 P.2d 985 , 991 (Utah 1988). 2016But “the trial court has broad discretion in determining what constitutes a reasonable fee, and we will consider that determination against an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Dixie State Bank v. Bracken, 764 P.2d 985, 991 (Utah 1988). ¶60 The contempt statute allows the aggrieved party to recover its “costs and expenses.” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-311(1) (LexisNexis Supp. 2016). | 14 | 16 |
Crossland Savings v. Hatchgreen2 sentences2001ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW 16 Debry first argues that the trial court erroneously denied her motion for an extension of time to respond to CMS's summary judgment motion. "[We review a trial court's decision to grant or deny a rule 56(F) motion under the abuse of discretion standard. 'Under this standard, we will not reverse unless the decision exeeeds the limits of reasonability.'" Crossland Sav. v. Hatch, 877 P.2d 1241, 1243 (Utah 1994) (citation omitted). 2000As for the trial court’s rule 56(f) ruling, we review it under an abuse of discretion standard: Does the grant or denial exceed “the limits of reasonability.” Crossland Sav. v. Hatch, 877 P.2d 1241 , 1243 *1243 (Utah 1994) (quoting State v. Larsen, 865 P.2d 1355, 1361 (Utah 1993)). ¶ 10 When reviewing a local government action, we give local government great latitude in creating solutions to the many challenges it faces, unless the action “is arbitrary, or is directly prohibited by, or is inconsistent with the policy of, the state or federal laws or the constitution of [Utah] or of the United | 7 | 7 |
State v. Blairgreen2 sentences2004“We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Blair, 868 P.2d 802, 805 (Utah 1993). 2004"We review a trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard." State v. Blair, 868 P.2d 802, 805 (Utah 1993). | 6 | 6 |
Barnard v. Sutliffgreen2 sentences2011In Barnard v. Sutliff, 846 P.2d 1229 (Utah 1992), the Utah Supreme Court announced a three-tier approach to review the imposition of rule 11 sanctions: "(1) findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard; (2) legal conclusions are reviewed under the correction of error standard; and (3) the type and amount of sanction to be imposed is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." Morse v. Packer, 1999 UT 5, ¶ 10 , 973 P.2d 422 (citing Sutliff, 846 P.2d at 1234-35 ). 2011In Barnard v. Sutliff, 846 P.2d 1229 (Utah 1992), the Utah Supreme Court announced a three-tier approach to review the imposition of rule 11 sanctions: "(1) findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard; (2) legal conclusions are reviewed under the correction of error standard; and (3) the type and amount of sanction to be imposed is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." Morse v. Packer, 1999 UT 5, ¶ 10 , 973 P.2d 422 (citing Sutliff, 846 P.2d at 1234-35 ). | 5 | 9 |
State v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences2002Rep. 44 , 65 P.3d 1134 , cert, granted, 535 U.S. 1111 , 122 S.Ct. 2326 , 153 L.Ed.2d 158 (2002). ¶ 6 We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under Rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, and will not overturn a lower court’s determination of admissibility unless it is “beyond the limits of reasonability.” State v. 688 East 640 North, 942 P.2d 925, 930 (Utah 1997) (quoting State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 239-40 (Utah 1992)). 2002Rep. 44 , 65 P.3d 1134 , cert. granted, 535 U.S. 1111 , 122 S.Ct. 2326 , 153 L.Ed.2d 158 (2002). ¶ 6 We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under Rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, and will not overturn a lower court's determination of admissibility unless it is "beyond the limits of reasonability." State v. 633 East 640 North, 942 P.2d 925, 930 (Utah 1997) (quoting State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 239-40 (Utah 1992)). | 5 | 7 |
Gunn Hill Dairy Properties, LLC v. Los Angeles Depatrment of Water & Powergreen2 sentences2025See Gunn Hill Dairy Props., LLC v. Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power, 2015 UT App 261, ¶¶ 21, 24 , 361 P.3d 703 (Orme, J., concurring, joined by Toomey, J.) (stating that “standards of review really do matter” and that under the abuse of discretion standard, appellate courts must affirm cases even when other judges might have ruled differently, so long as the district court’s decision is “within the broad range of discretion entrusted to” it), cert. denied, 369 P.3d 451 (Utah 2016). 2025See Gunn Hill Dairy Props., LLC v. Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power, 2015 UT App 261, ¶¶ 21, 24 , 361 P.3d 703 (Orme, J., concurring, joined by Toomey, J.) (stating that “standards of review really do matter” and that under the abuse of discretion standard, appellate courts must affirm cases even when other judges might have ruled differently, so long as the district court’s decision is “within the broad range of discretion entrusted to” it), cert. denied, 369 P.3d 451 (Utah 2016). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Penagreen2 sentences2007Today we recognize that the highly deferential standard of review utilized for other equitable awards of attorney fees is unsuitable for private attorney general doctrine cases and conclude instead that de novo review should be applied. 4 ¶ 7 In Hughes, 2004 UT 22 , ¶ 24 n. 2, 89 P.3d 148 , our determination to apply the abuse of discretion standard of review to equitable awards of attorney fees was based largely upon our discussion in State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 936 (Utah 1994), of the opportunities for trial courts to “assess the credibility of witnesses and to derive a sense of the proceed 2007Today we recognize that the highly deferential standard of review utilized for other equitable awards of attorney fees is unsuitable for private attorney general doctrine cases and conclude instead that de novo review should be applied. [4] ¶ 7 In Hughes, 2004 UT 22 , ¶ 24 n. 2, 89 P.3d 148 , our determination to apply the abuse of discretion standard of review to equitable awards of attorney fees was based largely upon our discussion in State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 936 (Utah 1994), of the opportunities for trial courts to "assess the credibility of witnesses and to derive a sense of the proce | 4 | 5 |
State v. Real Property at 633 East 640 North, Oremgreen2 sentences2002Rep. 44 , 65 P.3d 1134 , cert, granted, 535 U.S. 1111 , 122 S.Ct. 2326 , 153 L.Ed.2d 158 (2002). ¶ 6 We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under Rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, and will not overturn a lower court’s determination of admissibility unless it is “beyond the limits of reasonability.” State v. 688 East 640 North, 942 P.2d 925, 930 (Utah 1997) (quoting State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 239-40 (Utah 1992)). 2002Rep. 44 , 65 P.3d 1134 , cert. granted, 535 U.S. 1111 , 122 S.Ct. 2326 , 153 L.Ed.2d 158 (2002). ¶ 6 We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under Rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, and will not overturn a lower court's determination of admissibility unless it is "beyond the limits of reasonability." State v. 633 East 640 North, 942 P.2d 925, 930 (Utah 1997) (quoting State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 239-40 (Utah 1992)). | 4 | 4 |
| State v. Gerrardgreen | 4 | 4 |
| Barrett v. Petersongreen | 4 | 4 |
State v. Decorsogreen2 sentences2002Seq, eg., State v. Decorso, 1999 UT 57, ¶38 , 993 P.2d 837 (reiterating that a trial court's denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard). 2002Seq, eg., State v. Decorso, 1999 UT 57, ¶38 , 993 P.2d 837 (reiterating that a trial court's denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard). | 3 | 12 |
State v. Killpackgreen2 sentences2019See State v. McNeil , 2013 UT App 134 , ¶ 41, 302 P.3d 844 (cleaned up), aff'd , 2016 UT 3 , 365 P.3d 699 . ¶15 The second issue is whether the trial court erred by sentencing Boyle to prison instead of probation. "[W]e review a trial court's decision to deny probation under an abuse of discretion standard and will overturn a sentencing decision only if it is clear that the actions of the trial judge were so inherently unfair as to constitute an abuse of discretion." State v. Killpack , 2008 UT 49 , ¶ 18, 191 P.3d 17 (cleaned up). 2019See State v. McNeil , 2013 UT App 134 , ¶ 41, 302 P.3d 844 (cleaned up), aff'd , 2016 UT 3 , 365 P.3d 699 . ¶15 The second issue is whether the trial court erred by sentencing Boyle to prison instead of probation. "[W]e review a trial court's decision to deny probation under an abuse of discretion standard and will overturn a sentencing decision only if it is clear that the actions of the trial judge were so inherently unfair as to constitute an abuse of discretion." State v. Killpack , 2008 UT 49 , ¶ 18, 191 P.3d 17 (cleaned up). | 3 | 5 |
| Frampton v. Wilsongreen | 3 | 4 |
| State v. Turnergreen | 3 | 3 |
| Valcarce v. Fitzgeraldgreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Browngreen | 3 | 3 |
State v. Hollengreen2 sentences2018The district court "has wide discretion in determining the admissibility of expert testimony, and such decisions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Hollen , 2002 UT 35 , ¶ 66, 44 P.3d 794 (quotation simplified). "[W]e will not reverse a decision to admit or exclude expert testimony unless the decision exceeds the limits of reasonability." Id. (quotation simplified). 2018The district court "has wide discretion in determining the admissibility of expert testimony, and such decisions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Hollen , 2002 UT 35 , ¶ 66, 44 P.3d 794 (quotation simplified). "[W]e will not reverse a decision to admit or exclude expert testimony unless the decision exceeds the limits of reasonability." Id. (quotation simplified). | 2 | 14 |
State v. Nelson-Waggonergreen2 sentences2016Evid. 408. 122 "[We review a trial court's decision to admit other acts evidence under rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence under an abuse of discretion standard." Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59, ¶ 16 , 6 P.3d 1120 . 2016Evid. 408. 122 "[We review a trial court's decision to admit other acts evidence under rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence under an abuse of discretion standard." Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59, ¶ 16 , 6 P.3d 1120 . | 2 | 14 |
USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorpgreen2 sentences2025“We apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a trial judge’s decision to grant or deny a new trial . . . .” USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorp, 2016 UT 20, ¶ 30 , 372 P.3d 629 (cleaned up). ¶29 Second, the Winns assert that the district court “abused its discretion in preventing [the] Winn[s] from inquiring into McKinlay’s experience of having two prior patients die from a pulmonary embolism.” “We grant a trial court broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence and will disturb its ruling only for abuse of discretion.” Daniels v. Gamma West Brachytherapy, LLC, 2009 UT 66, ¶ 32 , 221 P.3d 2025“We apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a trial judge’s decision to grant or deny a new trial . . . .” USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorp, 2016 UT 20, ¶ 30 , 372 P.3d 629 (cleaned up). ¶29 Second, the Winns assert that the district court “abused its discretion in preventing [the] Winn[s] from inquiring into McKinlay’s experience of having two prior patients die from a pulmonary embolism.” “We grant a trial court broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence and will disturb its ruling only for abuse of discretion.” Daniels v. Gamma West Brachytherapy, LLC, 2009 UT 66, ¶ 32 , 221 P.3d | 2 | 5 |
| Child v. Gondagreen | 2 | 4 |
| Mascaro v. Davisgreen | 2 | 4 |
| Pack v. Casegreen | 2 | 4 |
| State v. Farmergreen | 2 | 3 |
| Smith v. Volkswagen Southtownegreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. De La Rosagreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Pindergreen | 2 | 3 |
| Bennion v. Pennzoil Co.green | 2 | 3 |
| Russell v. Martellgreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Hollandgreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hon. Boydengreen2 sentences2024So when an appellant challenges “a legal conclusion . . . embedded in a district court’s discretionary determination, we peel back the abuse of discretion standard and look to make sure that the court applied the correct law.” Id. 2023And when “we peel back the abuse of discretion standard and look to make sure that the court applied the correct law,” we ultimately determine “whether the court abused its discretion or regularly pursued its authority in denying the motion.” Utah v. Boyden, 2019 UT 11 , ¶¶ 21–22, 441 P.3d 737 . | 1 | 6 |
Softsolutions, Inc. v. Brigham Young Universitygreen2 sentences2013However, the district court has broad discretion in determining what constitutes a reasonable fee, and we will consider that determination against an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Softsolutions, Inc. v. Brigham Young Univ., 2000 UT 46, ¶ 12 , 1 P.3d 1095 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2013However, the district court has broad discretion in determining what constitutes a reasonable fee, and we will consider that determination against an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Softsolutions, Inc. v. Brigham Young Univ., 2000 UT 46, ¶ 12 , 1 P.3d 1095 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 5 |
Lund v. Browngreen2 sentences2013But “the court’s discretion is not unlimited.” Lund v. Brown, 2000 UT 75, ¶ 11 , 11 P.3d 277 . 2013But “the court’s discretion is not unlimited.” Lund v. Brown, 2000 UT 75, ¶ 11 , 11 P.3d 277 . | 1 | 5 |
McLaughlin v. Schenkgreen2 sentences2023First, they argue that the district court violated the law of the case doctrine when, after the remand from the Utah Supreme Court, the district court altered a portion of the judgment that “had not been appealed and remain[ed] undisturbed on appeal.” Appellate courts review the “application of the law of the case doctrine . . . under an abuse of discretion standard.” McLaughlin v. Schenk, 2013 UT 20, ¶ 19 , 299 P.3d 1139 (quotation simplified). ¶24 The Spencers next argue that the district court erred by imposing certain limitations on their ability to move the location of the road. 2023First, they argue that the district court violated the law of the case doctrine when, after the remand from the Utah Supreme Court, the district court altered a portion of the judgment that “had not been appealed and remain[ed] undisturbed on appeal.” Appellate courts review the “application of the law of the case doctrine . . . under an abuse of discretion standard.” McLaughlin v. Schenk, 2013 UT 20, ¶ 19 , 299 P.3d 1139 (quotation simplified). ¶24 The Spencers next argue that the district court erred by imposing certain limitations on their ability to move the location of the road. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Kellgreen2 sentences2020Compare State v. Dibello, 780 P.2d 1221, 1230 (Utah 1989) (holding that “the gruesome portion of the videotape”—showing close-up shots of the victim’s “stab wounds in her chest, her slit throat, and her beaten face,” as well as her blood-covered neck, shoulders, and blouse—“should have been excluded under rule 403”), State v. Cloud, 722 P.2d 750 , 753–54 (Utah 1986) (holding that the district court abused its discretion by admitting a picture of a murder victim “lying face up in a pool of coagulated blood and three pictures of specific stab wounds to the hands and armpits”), and State v. White 2020Compare State v. Dibello, 780 P.2d 1221, 1230 (Utah 1989) (holding that “the gruesome portion of the videotape”—showing close-up shots of the victim’s “stab wounds in her chest, her slit throat, and her beaten face,” as well as her blood-covered neck, shoulders, and blouse—“should have been excluded under rule 403”), State v. Cloud, 722 P.2d 750 , 753–54 (Utah 1986) (holding that the district court abused its discretion by admitting a picture of a murder victim “lying face up in a pool of coagulated blood and three pictures of specific stab wounds to the hands and armpits”), and State v. White | 1 | 4 |
| Olson v. Olsongreen | 1 | 4 |
| Young v. Stategreen | 1 | 4 |
| Morgan v. Morgangreen | 1 | 4 |
| State v. Huntgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Menzies v. Galetka
green
2 sentences2024Appellate courts “review a district court’s denial of a 60(b) motion under an abuse of discretion standard of review.” Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 54 , 150 P.3d 480 . 2024Appellate courts “review a district court’s denial of a 60(b) motion under an abuse of discretion standard of review.” Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 54 , 150 P.3d 480 . | 10 | 2007–2024 |
Diversified Holdings, L.C. v. Turner
green
2 sentences2018"We review a [district] court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under Rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, and will not overturn a lower court's determination of admissibility unless it is beyond the limits of reasonability." Diversified Holdings L.C. v. Turner , 2002 UT 129 , ¶ 6, 63 P.3d 686 (cleaned up). "[L]egal errors, such as the incorrect interpretation of a statute or the application of an improper legal standard, are usually an abuse of discretion." Schroeder v. Utah Attorney Gen.'s Office , 2015 UT 77 , ¶ 49, 358 P.3d 1075 . ¶ 16 Third, 2018"We review a [district] court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under Rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, and will not overturn a lower court's determination of admissibility unless it is beyond the limits of reasonability." Diversified Holdings L.C. v. Turner , 2002 UT 129 , ¶ 6, 63 P.3d 686 (cleaned up). "[L]egal errors, such as the incorrect interpretation of a statute or the application of an improper legal standard, are usually an abuse of discretion." Schroeder v. Utah Attorney Gen.'s Office , 2015 UT 77 , ¶ 49, 358 P.3d 1075 . ¶ 16 Third, | 10 | 2004–2018 |
Jensen v. Sawyers
green
2 sentences2025Costs awards are generally “reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Jensen v. Sawyers, 2005 UT 81, ¶ 140 , 130 P.3d 325 (quotation simplified). 2025Costs awards are generally “reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Jensen v. Sawyers, 2005 UT 81, ¶ 140 , 130 P.3d 325 (quotation simplified). | 9 | 2007–2025 |
R.T. Nielson Co. v. Cook
green
2 sentences2007"We therefore review the trial court's determination as to who was the prevailing party under an abuse of discretion standard." Id. 2007Accordingly, we will "review the trial court's determination as to who was the prevailing party under an abuse of discretion standard." Id. | 9 | 2003–2020 |
State v. Billingsley
green
2 sentences2024A. The Standard of Review for New Trial Rulings Under Rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure ¶42 Our cases make clear that “[w]e review a [district] court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Billingsley, 2013 UT 17, ¶ 9 , 311 P.3d 995 ; see also State v. Pinder, 2005 UT 15, ¶ 20 , 114 P.3d 551 . 2024A. The Standard of Review for New Trial Rulings Under Rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure ¶42 Our cases make clear that “[w]e review a [district] court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Billingsley, 2013 UT 17, ¶ 9 , 311 P.3d 995 ; see also State v. Pinder, 2005 UT 15, ¶ 20 , 114 P.3d 551 . | 6 | 2013–2024 |
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy v. Sorf
green
2 sentences2017We néed not decide whether rule 60(b) is a proper mechanism for asserting claims of ineffective assistance, because the district court based its ■denial, of Defendant’s motion on its determination that the motion was untimely. “[A] district court has broad discretion in ruling on a -motion to set aside an order or judgment under rule 60(b), and ‘[t]hus, we review a district court’s denial of a 60(b) motion-under an abuse of discretion standard.’” Metropolitan Water Dist. of Salt Lake & Sandy v. Sorf, 2013 UT 27, ¶ 12 , 304 P.3d 824 (second alteration in original) (quoting Menzies v. Galetka, 2 2017We néed not decide whether rule 60(b) is a proper mechanism for asserting claims of ineffective assistance, because the district court based its ■denial, of Defendant’s motion on its determination that the motion was untimely. “[A] district court has broad discretion in ruling on a -motion to set aside an order or judgment under rule 60(b), and ‘[t]hus, we review a district court’s denial of a 60(b) motion-under an abuse of discretion standard.’” Metropolitan Water Dist. of Salt Lake & Sandy v. Sorf, 2013 UT 27, ¶ 12 , 304 P.3d 824 (second alteration in original) (quoting Menzies v. Galetka, 2 | 6 | 2013–2017 |
Bade-Brown v. Labor Commission
green
2 sentences2024We review such decisions “under an abuse of discretion standard, providing relief only if a reasonable basis for that decision is not apparent from the record.” Bade-Brown v. Labor Comm’n, 2016 UT App 65, ¶ 8 , 372 P.3d 44 (cleaned up). 4 4. 2024We review such decisions “under an abuse of discretion standard, providing relief only if a reasonable basis for that decision is not apparent from the record.” Bade-Brown v. Labor Comm’n, 2016 UT App 65, ¶ 8 , 372 P.3d 44 (cleaned up). 4 4. | 5 | 2018–2024 |
State v. Thornton
green
2 sentences2021“We review a trial court’s decision to admit evidence under rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Lucero, 2014 UT 15, ¶ 11 , 328 P.3d 841 (quotation simplified), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Thornton, 2017 UT 9 , 391 P.3d 1016 . 2021“We review a trial court’s decision to admit evidence under rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Lucero, 2014 UT 15, ¶ 11 , 328 P.3d 841 (quotation simplified), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Thornton, 2017 UT 9 , 391 P.3d 1016 . | 5 | 2017–2021 |
Morse v. Packer
green
2 sentences2011The standard for reviewing the imposition of sanctions under rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure involves a three-tiered approach: "(1) findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard; (2) legal conclusions are reviewed under the correction of error standard; and (8) the type or amount of sanction to be imposed is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." Morse v. Packer, 2000 UT 86, ¶ 16 , 15 P.3d 1021 . 2011The standard for reviewing the imposition of sanctions under rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure involves a three-tiered approach: "(1) findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard; (2) legal conclusions are reviewed under the correction of error standard; and (8) the type or amount of sanction to be imposed is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." Morse v. Packer, 2000 UT 86, ¶ 16 , 15 P.3d 1021 . | 5 | 2005–2011 |
Sanders v. Sanders
green
2 sentences2025“Normally, we review a court’s denial of a [rule] 60(b) motion under an abuse of discretion standard of review.” Sanders v. Sanders, 2021 UT App 122, ¶ 4 , 502 P.3d 1230 (cleaned up). 2025“Normally, we review a court’s denial of a [rule] 60(b) motion under an abuse of discretion standard of review.” Sanders v. Sanders, 2021 UT App 122, ¶ 4 , 502 P.3d 1230 (cleaned up). | 4 | 2021–2026 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2013Absent proof that an actual conflict existed, we review a trial court's refusal to appoint new counsel under an abuse of discretion standard, see State v. Scales, 946 P.2d 377, 381 (Utah Ct.App.1997), and Defendant argues that, at a minimum, the trial court erred in denying his motions for substitution of counsel. 123 An indigent defendant has a right to have counsel appointed to represent him at public expense, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 384-45 , 84 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), and the Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to effective assistance from such counsel, see 2013Absent proof that an actual conflict existed, we review a trial court’s refusal to appoint new counsel under an abuse of discretion standard, see State v. Scales, 946 P.2d 377, 381 (Utah Ct. App. 1997), and Defendant argues that, at a minimum, the trial court erred in denying his motions for substitution of counsel. ¶23 An indigent defendant has a right to have counsel appointed to represent him at public expense, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 344–45 (1963), and the Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to effective assistance from such counsel, see Strickland v. Washington, 4 | 4 | 2013–2022 |
| State v. Maestas green | 4 | 2016–2019 |
| State v. Benvenuto green | 4 | 2001–2013 |
| Hudema v. Carpenter green | 4 | 2010–2013 |
| Moon v. Moon green | 4 | 2000–2009 |
| State v. Widdison green | 4 | 2001–2005 |
| Anderson v. Thompson green | 3 | 2024–2025 |
| State v. Walker green | 3 | 2017–2022 |
| Griffith v. Griffith green | 3 | 2005–2021 |
| State v. Barrett green | 3 | 2018–2021 |
| Young v. Young green | 3 | 2009–2016 |
| State v. Mead green | 3 | 2012–2012 |
| Matrix Funding Corp. v. Utah State Tax Commission green | 3 | 2007–2012 |
| Green v. Louder green | 3 | 2009–2011 |
| Morse v. Packer green | 3 | 2000–2011 |
| Price Development Co., LP v. Orem City green | 3 | 2007–2010 |
| Stevens v. Michigan green | 3 | 2000–2001 |
| Mekalonis v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board green | 3 | 2000–2001 |
| State v. Rimmasch green | 3 | 1997–2001 |
| Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd. green | 2 | 2020–2026 |
| State v. Kufrin green | 2 | 2024–2026 |
| Olsen v. Olsen green | 2 | 2024–2026 |
| In re Adoption of M.A. green | 2 | 2025–2026 |
| State v. Martin green | 2 | 2025–2025 |
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.