Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1937–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2020See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). 2020See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lampergreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., State v. Pecht, 2002 UT 41, ¶ 25 , 48 P.3d 931 ("[The list of factors provided by section 76-5-411 isn't exclusive but is simply intended to prompt a comprehensive inquiry into all the cireum-stances surrounding the out[-Jof[-Jeourt statement in order to determine ... reliability." (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Lamper, 779 P.2d 1125, 1129 (Utah 1989) (stating that "trial court[s] faced with the admissibility of out-of-court statements by an alleged victim of child sexual abuse must determine the admissibility of that evidence under section 76 1990The pronouncements of Nelson , although set forth in an extensive footnote, have been recognized in two recent cases, State v. Lamper, 779 P.2d 1125, 1129 (Utah 1989), and State v. Van Matre, 777 P.2d 459, 463 (Utah 1989). | 2 | 2 |
Wiren v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.green1 sentence2019Lee, dissenting complaint.79 And that holds regardless of whether the plaintiff’s theory of recovery (or nature of the “cause of action,” to use the majority’s term) is distinct.80 ¶88 The courts have sometimes struggled to state a comprehensive test delineating the scope of the relevant “conduct, transaction, or occurrence.”81 But the factual relationship between _____________________________________________________________ 79 See, e.g., United States v. Craycraft, 167 F.3d 451, 457 (8th Cir. 1999) (“If the ineffective conduct alleged by [petitioner] in his first petition cannot be said to ha | 1 | 1 |
Idaho Power Co. v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2019Cir. 1953) (concluding that an amended claim did not arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence even though the subsequent conduct “grew out of” the original pleading because it was “independent and distinct”). 80 See, e.g., Idaho Power Co. v. United States, 105 Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Ricardo Santana v. Holiday Inns, Inc., Gene Johnson, Randy Scheets, Bruce Faltin as Employees Holiday Inns, Inc.green1 sentence2019Lee, dissenting complaint.79 And that holds regardless of whether the plaintiff’s theory of recovery (or nature of the “cause of action,” to use the majority’s term) is distinct.80 ¶88 The courts have sometimes struggled to state a comprehensive test delineating the scope of the relevant “conduct, transaction, or occurrence.”81 But the factual relationship between _____________________________________________________________ 79 See, e.g., United States v. Craycraft, 167 F.3d 451, 457 (8th Cir. 1999) (“If the ineffective conduct alleged by [petitioner] in his first petition cannot be said to ha | 1 | 1 |
Robert L. Holmes v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. And Amalgamated Transit Union, Afl-Cio Local Union No. 1313green1 sentence2019Lee, dissenting complaint.79 And that holds regardless of whether the plaintiff’s theory of recovery (or nature of the “cause of action,” to use the majority’s term) is distinct.80 ¶88 The courts have sometimes struggled to state a comprehensive test delineating the scope of the relevant “conduct, transaction, or occurrence.”81 But the factual relationship between _____________________________________________________________ 79 See, e.g., United States v. Craycraft, 167 F.3d 451, 457 (8th Cir. 1999) (“If the ineffective conduct alleged by [petitioner] in his first petition cannot be said to ha | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Michael Lloyd Craycraftgreen1 sentence2019Lee, dissenting complaint.79 And that holds regardless of whether the plaintiff’s theory of recovery (or nature of the “cause of action,” to use the majority’s term) is distinct.80 ¶88 The courts have sometimes struggled to state a comprehensive test delineating the scope of the relevant “conduct, transaction, or occurrence.”81 But the factual relationship between _____________________________________________________________ 79 See, e.g., United States v. Craycraft, 167 F.3d 451, 457 (8th Cir. 1999) (“If the ineffective conduct alleged by [petitioner] in his first petition cannot be said to ha | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pechtgreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., State v. Pecht, 2002 UT 41, ¶ 25 , 48 P.3d 931 ("[The list of factors provided by section 76-5-411 isn't exclusive but is simply intended to prompt a comprehensive inquiry into all the cireum-stances surrounding the out[-Jof[-Jeourt statement in order to determine ... reliability." (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Lamper, 779 P.2d 1125, 1129 (Utah 1989) (stating that "trial court[s] faced with the admissibility of out-of-court statements by an alleged victim of child sexual abuse must determine the admissibility of that evidence under section 76 2012See, e.g., State v. Pecht, 2002 UT 41, ¶ 25 , 48 P.3d 931 ("[The list of factors provided by section 76-5-411 isn't exclusive but is simply intended to prompt a comprehensive inquiry into all the cireum-stances surrounding the out[-Jof[-Jeourt statement in order to determine ... reliability." (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Lamper, 779 P.2d 1125, 1129 (Utah 1989) (stating that "trial court[s] faced with the admissibility of out-of-court statements by an alleged victim of child sexual abuse must determine the admissibility of that evidence under section 76 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Palmergreen2 sentences2011The Fifth Amendment right to silence is a comprehensive privilege that "can be claimed in any proceeding, be it eriminal or civil, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory.... [I]t protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might be so used." State v. Palmer, 860 P.2d 339, 347 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (alteration and omission in original) (additional internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 47-48 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). 115 A person 2011The Fifth Amendment right to silence is a comprehensive privilege that "can be claimed in any proceeding, be it eriminal or civil, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory.... [I]t protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might be so used." State v. Palmer, 860 P.2d 339, 347 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (alteration and omission in original) (additional internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 47-48 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). 115 A person | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fenclgreen2 sentences2011The Fifth Amendment right to silence is a comprehensive privilege that "can be claimed in any proceeding, be it eriminal or civil, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory.... [I]t protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might be so used." State v. Palmer, 860 P.2d 339, 347 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (alteration and omission in original) (additional internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 47-48 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). 115 A person 2011The Fifth Amendment right to silence is a comprehensive privilege that "can be claimed in any proceeding, be it eriminal or civil, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory.... [I]t protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might be so used." State v. Palmer, 860 P.2d 339, 347 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (alteration and omission in original) (additional internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 47-48 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). 115 A person | 1 | 1 |
State v. Van Matregreen1 sentence1990The pronouncements of Nelson , although set forth in an extensive footnote, have been recognized in two recent cases, State v. Lamper, 779 P.2d 1125, 1129 (Utah 1989), and State v. Van Matre, 777 P.2d 459, 463 (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. Matsamas
green
2 sentences2012See, e.g., State v. Pecht, 2002 UT 41, ¶ 25 , 48 P.3d 931 ("[The list of factors provided by section 76-5-411 isn't exclusive but is simply intended to prompt a comprehensive inquiry into all the cireum-stances surrounding the out[-Jof[-Jeourt statement in order to determine ... reliability." (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Lamper, 779 P.2d 1125, 1129 (Utah 1989) (stating that "trial court[s] faced with the admissibility of out-of-court statements by an alleged victim of child sexual abuse must determine the admissibility of that evidence under section 76 1993In Nelson , we said that this list of factors is not exclusive; rather, it is “intended to prompt a comprehensive inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the child’s out-of-court statement in order to determine its reliability.” 725 P.2d at 1356 n. 3 (emphasis added) (cited in Matsamas, 808 P.2d at 1051 ). | 2 | 1993–2012 |
In Re GAULT
green
2 sentences2011The Fifth Amendment right to silence is a comprehensive privilege that "can be claimed in any proceeding, be it eriminal or civil, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory.... [I]t protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might be so used." State v. Palmer, 860 P.2d 339, 347 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (alteration and omission in original) (additional internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 47-48 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). 115 A person 2011The Fifth Amendment right to silence is a comprehensive privilege that "can be claimed in any proceeding, be it eriminal or civil, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory.... [I]t protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might be so used." State v. Palmer, 860 P.2d 339, 347 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (alteration and omission in original) (additional internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 47-48 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). 115 A person | 2 | 1993–2011 |
State v. Nelson
green
2 sentences1993In Nelson , we said that this list of factors is not exclusive; rather, it is “intended to prompt a comprehensive inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the child’s out-of-court statement in order to determine its reliability.” 725 P.2d at 1356 n. 3 (emphasis added) (cited in Matsamas, 808 P.2d at 1051 ). 1990Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-411 (Supp.1989). 3 In State v. Nelson, 725 P.2d 1353 (Utah 1986), our supreme court provided for a comprehensive inquiry pursuant to the language now in subsection (2) of the statute. | 2 | 1990–1993 |
State v. Gollaher
green
1 sentence2020In any event, although Gollaher at an earlier point called the State’s suggestion that the alternates replace the (continued…) 20160317-CA 11 2020 UT App 131 State v. Gollaher ensuring that the alternates had not discussed the details of the case with anyone or expressed an opinion on the case following their dismissal, the court directed them to join the remaining jurors. ¶25 Finally, the court engaged in a comprehensive inquiry to ensure that the reconstituted jury would be able to begin deliberations anew and would not be affected by its reconstitution. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Loughton
green
1 sentence2012See, e.g., State v. Pecht, 2002 UT 41, ¶ 25 , 48 P.3d 931 ("[The list of factors provided by section 76-5-411 isn't exclusive but is simply intended to prompt a comprehensive inquiry into all the cireum-stances surrounding the out[-Jof[-Jeourt statement in order to determine ... reliability." (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Lamper, 779 P.2d 1125, 1129 (Utah 1989) (stating that "trial court[s] faced with the admissibility of out-of-court statements by an alleged victim of child sexual abuse must determine the admissibility of that evidence under section 76 | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Keegan v. State
green
1 sentence2006Consequently, this court concluded that the government weighed the options, considered the implications of those options, and thus, “the decision was essential to the realization of [the government’s] policy.” Id. ¶ 28 Here, no evidence indicates that UDOT conducted any in-depth safety studies or performed a comprehensive analysis to assess the benefits of the incremental cost of using concrete barriers, even though UDOT conducts such studies regularly. 11 In the absence of a documented report, this court can only surmise what sort of scrutiny and analytical rigor UDOT utilized in making these | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Holgate
green
2 sentences2006For a more comprehensive analysis of the preservation rule in Utah jurisprudence, see State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶¶ 11-17 , 10 P.3d 346 . 3 . 2006For a more comprehensive analysis of the preservation rule in Utah jurisprudence, see State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶¶ 11-17 , 10 P.3d 346 . 3 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
red
2 sentences1993The Fifth Amendment right to silence is a comprehensive privilege that “can be claimed in any proceeding, be it criminal or civil, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory.... [I]t protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that. might be so used.” In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 47-48 , 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1454 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (quoting Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U.S. 52, 94 , 84 S.Ct. 1594, 1611 , 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964) (White, J., concurring)) (emphasis modified). 1993The Fifth Amendment right to silence is a comprehensive privilege that “can be claimed in any proceeding, be it criminal or civil, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory.... [I]t protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that. might be so used.” In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 47-48 , 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1454 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (quoting Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U.S. 52, 94 , 84 S.Ct. 1594, 1611 , 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964) (White, J., concurring)) (emphasis modified). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway v. Buell
green
2 sentences1991Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557, 562 , 107 S.Ct. 1410, 1414 , 94 L.Ed.2d 563 (1987). 1991Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557, 562 , 107 S.Ct. 1410, 1414 , 94 L.Ed.2d 563 (1987). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Watson v. Mayberry
neutral
2 sentences1937It was said: “This court in numerous cases has held that a judgment to be final for purposes of an appeal must dispose of the case as to all of the parties and finally dispose of the subject-matter of the litigation on the merits, or be a termination of the particular proceeding or action, or, as sometimes expressed, the case put out of court,” citing the Winnovich and Honerine Cases, supra, and Watson v. Mayberry, 15 Utah 265 , 49 P. 479 , and Standard Steam Laundry v. Dole, 20 Utah 469 , 58 P. 1109, 1110 . 1937It was said: “This court in numerous cases has held that a judgment to be final for purposes of an appeal must dispose of the case as to all of the parties and finally dispose of the subject-matter of the litigation on the merits, or be a termination of the particular proceeding or action, or, as sometimes expressed, the case put out of court,” citing the Winnovich and Honerine Cases, supra, and Watson v. Mayberry, 15 Utah 265 , 49 P. 479 , and Standard Steam Laundry v. Dole, 20 Utah 469 , 58 P. 1109, 1110 . | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Standard Steam Laundry v. Dole
neutral
2 sentences1937It was said: “This court in numerous cases has held that a judgment to be final for purposes of an appeal must dispose of the case as to all of the parties and finally dispose of the subject-matter of the litigation on the merits, or be a termination of the particular proceeding or action, or, as sometimes expressed, the case put out of court,” citing the Winnovich and Honerine Cases, supra, and Watson v. Mayberry, 15 Utah 265 , 49 P. 479 , and Standard Steam Laundry v. Dole, 20 Utah 469 , 58 P. 1109, 1110 . 1937It was said: “This court in numerous cases has held that a judgment to be final for purposes of an appeal must dispose of the case as to all of the parties and finally dispose of the subject-matter of the litigation on the merits, or be a termination of the particular proceeding or action, or, as sometimes expressed, the case put out of court,” citing the Winnovich and Honerine Cases, supra, and Watson v. Mayberry, 15 Utah 265 , 49 P. 479 , and Standard Steam Laundry v. Dole, 20 Utah 469 , 58 P. 1109, 1110 . | 1 | 1937–1937 |
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.