13 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1907–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Heathman v. Hatchgreen2 sentences2012The reasons for this requirement are to ensure "that the essential facts upon which redress is sought be set forth with simplicity, brevity, clarity and certainty so that it can be determined whether there exists a legal basis for the relief claimed; and, if so, so that there will be a clearly defined foundation upon which further proceedings by way of responsive pleadings and/or trial can go forward in an orderly manner." Coroles, 2003 UT App 339, ¶ 23 , 79 P.3d 974 (quoting Heathman v. Hatch, 13 Utah 2d 266 , 372 P.2d 990, 992 (1962)). [ 10 Coroles also determined that the particulars necess 2012The reasons for this requirement are to ensure "that the essential facts upon which redress is sought be set forth with simplicity, brevity, clarity and certainty so that it can be determined whether there exists a legal basis for the relief claimed; and, if so, so that there will be a clearly defined foundation upon which further proceedings by way of responsive pleadings and/or trial can go forward in an orderly manner." Coroles, 2003 UT App 339, ¶ 23 , 79 P.3d 974 (quoting Heathman v. Hatch, 13 Utah 2d 266 , 372 P.2d 990, 992 (1962)). [ 10 Coroles also determined that the particulars necess | 1 | 1 |
Reeves v. Gentilegreen1 sentence1996(Emphasis added.) The Counties contend that to show good cause under this section, they only had to “allege or state the reasons for their challenge to the Division’s assessment” and the reasons should be reasonable “in the sense of being logically or rationally related to fair market value.” PaeifiCorp responds that the Commission correctly defined “good cause” to mean a material mistake of fact or law. “‘The primary role of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the legislature in light of the purpose the statute was meant to achieve.’ ” Sullivan v. Scoular Grain Co. of | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Scoular Grain Co. of Utahgreen1 sentence1996(Emphasis added.) The Counties contend that to show good cause under this section, they only had to “allege or state the reasons for their challenge to the Division’s assessment” and the reasons should be reasonable “in the sense of being logically or rationally related to fair market value.” PaeifiCorp responds that the Commission correctly defined “good cause” to mean a material mistake of fact or law. “‘The primary role of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the legislature in light of the purpose the statute was meant to achieve.’ ” Sullivan v. Scoular Grain Co. of | 1 | 1 |
Shioji v. Shiojigreen1 sentence1985“One of the reasons for this requirement is to explain *257 the basis for the modification so the aggrieved party can determine whether to challenge it and so the appellate court can properly review it on appeal.” Shioji v. Shioji, Utah, 671 P.2d 135, 136 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Behangreen1 sentence1923United States v. Behan, 110 U. S. 338, 345, 346, 347 ; Western Union Tel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
R.C.S. v. A.O.L.
green
1 sentence2018As the State points out, Robinson's reliance on In re Baby Girl T. , 2012 UT 78 , 298 P.3d 1251 , is misplaced. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
R.C.S. v. A.O.L.
green
1 sentence2018As the State points out, Robinson's reliance on In re Baby Girl T. , 2012 UT 78 , 298 P.3d 1251 , is misplaced. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. Hill
green
2 sentences2015T5 Finally, Todd argues that the findings of the hearing officer are not supported by "some evidence." See Walpole, 472 U.S. at 454 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 . 2015T5 Finally, Todd argues that the findings of the hearing officer are not supported by "some evidence." See Walpole, 472 U.S. at 454 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Coroles v. Sabey
green
2 sentences2012The reasons for this requirement are to ensure "that the essential facts upon which redress is sought be set forth with simplicity, brevity, clarity and certainty so that it can be determined whether there exists a legal basis for the relief claimed; and, if so, so that there will be a clearly defined foundation upon which further proceedings by way of responsive pleadings and/or trial can go forward in an orderly manner." Coroles, 2003 UT App 339, ¶ 23 , 79 P.3d 974 (quoting Heathman v. Hatch, 13 Utah 2d 266 , 372 P.2d 990, 992 (1962)). [ 10 Coroles also determined that the particulars necess 2012The reasons for this requirement are to ensure "that the essential facts upon which redress is sought be set forth with simplicity, brevity, clarity and certainty so that it can be determined whether there exists a legal basis for the relief claimed; and, if so, so that there will be a clearly defined foundation upon which further proceedings by way of responsive pleadings and/or trial can go forward in an orderly manner." Coroles, 2003 UT App 339, ¶ 23 , 79 P.3d 974 (quoting Heathman v. Hatch, 13 Utah 2d 266 , 372 P.2d 990, 992 (1962)). [ 10 Coroles also determined that the particulars necess | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Reeves v. Geigy Pharmaceutical, Inc.
green
1 sentence1990Reeves, 764 P.2d at 639 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Kent v. United States
green
2 sentences1989In Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that the determination of whether to transfer a child from the juvenile court to the criminal process of the adult court is a “critically important” proceeding, that it must satisfy basic requirements of due process and fairness, and that it is incumbent on the juvenile court, after a hearing, to accompany a waiver of jurisdiction with a statement of the reasons for the waiver. 383 U.S. at 560-61 , 86 S.Ct. at 1056-57 . 1989In Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that the determination of whether to transfer a child from the juvenile court to the criminal process of the adult court is a “critically important” proceeding, that it must satisfy basic requirements of due process and fairness, and that it is incumbent on the juvenile court, after a hearing, to accompany a waiver of jurisdiction with a statement of the reasons for the waiver. 383 U.S. at 560-61 , 86 S.Ct. at 1056-57 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Mecham Ex Rel. Utah State Department of Social Services v. Mecham
green
1 sentence1983The reasons for the rule in that circumstance do not apply in this case, where there was no court or administrative order fixing appellant's support obligations at the time he provided housing for Goldie and their child. [1] U.C.A., 1953, § 78-45-1, et seq. [2] Utah, 570 P.2d 123 (1977). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Maxmilian v. . Mayor
green
1 sentence1938In Maxmilian v. Mayor, etc., supra [ 62 N. Y. 160 , 20 Am. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Moore v. Rochester Weaver Mining Co.
green
2 sentences1935In the syllabus, which accurately reflects the opinion, it is said that: “An agreement made by a client, with his counsel, after the latter has been employed in a particular business, by which the original contract is varied, and greater compensation is secured to the counsel, than may have been agreed upon, when first retained; is invalid, and cannot be enforced.” And the court gives the following reasons for the rule: “The firmest ground for the support of the principle to which the complainant has resorted, for relief, consists of the confidence reposed by a client, in his attorney, and the 1935In the syllabus, which accurately reflects the opinion, it is said that: “An agreement made by a client, with his counsel, after the latter has been employed in a particular business, by which the original contract is varied, and greater compensation is secured to the counsel, than may have been agreed upon, when first retained; is invalid, and cannot be enforced.” And the court gives the following reasons for the rule: “The firmest ground for the support of the principle to which the complainant has resorted, for relief, consists of the confidence reposed by a client, in his attorney, and the | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Lukich v. Utah Construction Co.
neutral
2 sentences1918Lukich v. Utah Const. Co., 48 Utah, 452 , 160 Pac. 270 . 1918Lukich v. Utah Const. Co., 48 Utah, 452 , 160 Pac. 270 . | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billings
green
2 sentences1907The reasons for the rule are discussed in the case of Watson v. Mayberry, 15 Utah 265 , 49 Pac. 479 , and they are well supported by the following authorities: Smelting Company v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31 , 14 Sup. Ct. 4, 37 L. 1907The reasons for the rule are discussed in the case of Watson v. Mayberry, 15 Utah 265 , 49 Pac. 479 , and they are well supported by the following authorities: Smelting Company v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31 , 14 Sup. Ct. 4, 37 L. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Watson v. Mayberry
neutral
2 sentences1907The reasons for the rule are discussed in the case of Watson v. Mayberry, 15 Utah 265 , 49 Pac. 479 , and they are well supported by the following authorities: Smelting Company v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31 , 14 Sup. Ct. 4, 37 L. 1907The reasons for the rule are discussed in the case of Watson v. Mayberry, 15 Utah 265 , 49 Pac. 479 , and they are well supported by the following authorities: Smelting Company v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31 , 14 Sup. Ct. 4, 37 L. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
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.