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 2006–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Barrettgreen2 sentences2021Following a showing of abuse of discretion, ―[a] court faced with a petition for extraordinary relief will consider multiple factors when determining whether or not to grant the relief requested in the petition.‖ Id. (listing, as examples, factors such as ―the egregiousness of the alleged error, the significance of the legal issue presented by the petition, [and] the severity of the consequences occasioned by the alleged error‖). 2019"These factors include 'the egregiousness of the alleged error, the significance of the legal issue presented by the petition, [and] the severity of the consequences occasioned by the alleged error ....' " Id. (quoting State v. Barrett , 2005 UT 88 , ¶ 24, 127 P.3d 682 ). | 1 | 9 |
State v. Hon. Boydengreen2 sentences2025Previously, “we have outlined a number of nonexclusive factors a court may consider in deciding whether to grant a petition for extraordinary relief,” including “the egregiousness of the alleged error, the significance of the legal issue presented by the petition, and the severity of the consequences occasioned by the alleged error.” Utah v. Boyden, 2019 UT 11, ¶ 43, 441 P.3d 737 (cleaned up). 2025Previously, “we have outlined a number of nonexclusive factors a court may consider in deciding whether to grant a petition for extraordinary relief,” including “the egregiousness of the alleged error, the significance of the legal issue presented by the petition, and the severity of the consequences occasioned by the alleged error.” Utah v. Boyden, 2019 UT 11, ¶ 43, 441 P.3d 737 (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
Salt Lake City v. McCLEVEgreen2 sentences2016The granting of relief under rale 65B turns on “multiple factors,” including, but not limited to, “the egregiousness of the alleged error, the significance of the legal issue presented by the petition, the severity of the consequences occasioned by the alleged error, and [any] additional factors.” Id,; see also McCleve, 2008 UT 41, ¶ 11 , 190 P.3d 1240 (concluding that “extraordinary relief is warranted” where “the district court’s error ... was not egregious, [but] the legal issue is significant; [and] there are many similar cases pending ,in the district courts which raise this very issue”). 2016The granting of relief under rale 65B turns on “multiple factors,” including, but not limited to, “the egregiousness of the alleged error, the significance of the legal issue presented by the petition, the severity of the consequences occasioned by the alleged error, and [any] additional factors.” Id,; see also McCleve, 2008 UT 41, ¶ 11 , 190 P.3d 1240 (concluding that “extraordinary relief is warranted” where “the district court’s error ... was not egregious, [but] the legal issue is significant; [and] there are many similar cases pending ,in the district courts which raise this very issue”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Snow, Christensen & Martineau v. Lindberg
green
2 sentences2017In deciding whether to issue such a writ “we may consider a variety of factors such as ‘the egregiousness of the alleged error, the significance of the legal issue presented by the petition, the severity of the consequences occasioned by the alleged error, and additional factors.’ ” Snow, Christensen & Martineau v. Lindberg, 2013 UT 15, ¶ 22 , 299 P.3d 1058 (quoting State v. Barrett, 2005 UT 88, ¶ 24 , 127 P.3d 682 ). 2017In deciding whether to issue such a writ “we may consider a variety of factors such as ‘the egregiousness of the alleged error, the significance of the legal issue presented by the petition, the severity of the consequences occasioned by the alleged error, and additional factors.’ ” Snow, Christensen & Martineau v. Lindberg, 2013 UT 15, ¶ 22 , 299 P.3d 1058 (quoting State v. Barrett, 2005 UT 88, ¶ 24 , 127 P.3d 682 ). | 3 | 2016–2021 |
State, Division of Child & Family Services v. Bazzelle
neutral
1 sentence2026“When determining whether or not to grant the relief requested in the petition, the court will consider several factors, such as: (1) the egregiousness of the alleged error, (2) the significance of the legal issue presented by the petition, and (3) the severity of the consequences occasioned by the alleged error.” Id. (cleaned up). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Gilbert v. Third Dist Ct JJs
green
1 sentence2019"These factors include 'the egregiousness of the alleged error, the significance of the legal issue presented by the petition, [and] the severity of the consequences occasioned by the alleged error ....' " Id. (quoting State v. Barrett , 2005 UT 88 , ¶ 24, 127 P.3d 682 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re J.B.
neutral
1 sentence2016However, "these factors are neither controlling nor do they wholly measure the extent of [a court's] discretion." Snow, Christensen & Martineau v, Lindberg, 2018 UT 15 , 1 22, 299 P.3d 1058 . 117 Gilbert argues that the alleged errors were both egregious and legally significant, and that the consequence-his ultimate disbarment from the practice of law for failing. to comply with the Disgorgement Order-is severe. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Lindberg
green
2 sentences2013Petitioners may seek relief under rule 65B “[w]here no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy is available.”3 Impor- tantly, rule 65B provides that “relief may be granted . . . where an inferior court . . . abused its discretion.”4 This means that even if we find that the district court abused its discretion, we may opt not to grant relief.5 And especially in matters of disqualification, we grant the district court “considerable latitude” because “the likelihood and dimensions of nascent conflicts of interest are notoriously hard to predict.”6 When deciding to grant relief after an abuse of d 2013Petitioners may seek relief under rule 65B “[w]here no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy is available.”3 Impor- tantly, rule 65B provides that “relief may be granted . . . where an inferior court . . . abused its discretion.”4 This means that even if we find that the district court abused its discretion, we may opt not to grant relief.5 And especially in matters of disqualification, we grant the district court “considerable latitude” because “the likelihood and dimensions of nascent conflicts of interest are notoriously hard to predict.”6 When deciding to grant relief after an abuse of d | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.