13 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2024 6 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 sentences2024The second element of the test “requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Id. at 687 . 2024Hughes’s ineffective assistance claim fails the second element of the test. ¶46 Under the second element of the ineffective assistance of counsel test, the appellant must show that defense counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense by “depriv[ing] the 20220640-CA 18 2024 UT App 168 State v. Hughes defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 . | 1 | 3 |
MacK v. Utah State Department of Commercegreen2 sentences2024See Mack, 2009 UT 47, ¶ 30 . 2024Id. (quotation simplified). ¶28 In assessing that element, Utah courts apply the transactional test found in section 24 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Millergreen1 sentence2024“A defendant’s inability to establish either element defeats a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.” Miller, 2023 UT App 85, ¶ 25 (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
Van Leeuwen v. Bank of America NAgreen1 sentence2020See Van Leeuwen, 2016 UT App 212, ¶ 8 . | 1 | 1 |
MacRis & Associates, Inc. v. Neways, Inc.green1 sentence2000See Madsen, 769 P.2d at 247 . 21 In reference to the second element of the test outlined above, Neways argued before the court of appeals that Maecris's claims for fraudulent transfer, successor Hability, and alter ego "should have been raised" in Maeris I because Macris knew of its claims against Neways before the trial in Macris I began and should therefore have amended its complaint in that action and asserted the claims now pursued in the present action. 122 The court of appeals rejected Neways's argument and held that the doctrine of claim preclusion did not require Ma-cris to litigate it | 1 | 1 |
Madsen v. Borthickgreen1 sentence2000See Madsen, 769 P.2d at 247 . 21 In reference to the second element of the test outlined above, Neways argued before the court of appeals that Maecris's claims for fraudulent transfer, successor Hability, and alter ego "should have been raised" in Maeris I because Macris knew of its claims against Neways before the trial in Macris I began and should therefore have amended its complaint in that action and asserted the claims now pursued in the present action. 122 The court of appeals rejected Neways's argument and held that the doctrine of claim preclusion did not require Ma-cris to litigate it | 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. Scott
green
2 sentences2021Under the second, a defendant must show “that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Id. at 687 . ¶27 To satisfy the second element of the inquiry, “[i]t is not enough for the defendant to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.” Id. at 693 . 20190360-CA 9 2021 UT App 75 State v. Moore Rather, “consider[ing] the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury,” id. at 695, a defendant must “demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome of his or her case would have bee 2021Under the second, a defendant must show “that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Id. at 687 . ¶27 To satisfy the second element of the inquiry, “[i]t is not enough for the defendant to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.” Id. at 693 . 20190360-CA 9 2021 UT App 75 State v. Moore Rather, “consider[ing] the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury,” id. at 695, a defendant must “demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome of his or her case would have bee | 2 | 2021–2024 |
Snyder v. Murray City Corp.
green
2 sentences2011Id. ¶ 29 (quoting Collins v. Sandy City Bd. of Adjustment, 2002 UT 77, ¶ 12 , 52 P.3d 1267 ). $42 To satisfy the second element of this test, the issue to be litigated must be "identical" in both cases. 2011Id. ¶ 29 (quoting Collins v. Sandy City Bd. of Adjustment, 2002 UT 77, ¶ 12 , 52 P.3d 1267 ). ¶42 To satisfy the second element of this test, the issue to be litigated must be "identical" in both cases. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Collins v. Sandy City Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences2011Id. ¶ 29 (quoting Collins v. Sandy City Bd. of Adjustment, 2002 UT 77, ¶ 12 , 52 P.3d 1267 ). $42 To satisfy the second element of this test, the issue to be litigated must be "identical" in both cases. 2011Id. ¶ 29 (quoting Collins v. Sandy City Bd. of Adjustment, 2002 UT 77, ¶ 12 , 52 P.3d 1267 ). $42 To satisfy the second element of this test, the issue to be litigated must be "identical" in both cases. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Ward v. McGarry
green
1 sentence2024Hughes’s ineffective assistance claim fails the second element of the test. ¶46 Under the second element of the ineffective assistance of counsel test, the appellant must show that defense counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense by “depriv[ing] the 20220640-CA 18 2024 UT App 168 State v. Hughes defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Honnen Equipment v. DAZ Management
green
2 sentences2022Co., 2022 UT 15 , ¶ 29 n.26, 508 P.3d 84 (cleaned up). 2022Co., 2022 UT 15 , ¶ 29 n.26, 508 P.3d 84 (cleaned up). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Moore
green
1 sentence2021Under the second, a defendant must show “that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Id. at 687 . ¶27 To satisfy the second element of the inquiry, “[i]t is not enough for the defendant to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.” Id. at 693 . 20190360-CA 9 2021 UT App 75 State v. Moore Rather, “consider[ing] the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury,” id. at 695, a defendant must “demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome of his or her case would have bee | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Gillmor v. Family Link, LLC
green
1 sentence2019Gillmor v. Family Link, LLC, 2012 UT 38, 6 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Overstock. Com, Inc. v. SmartBargains, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Overstock. com, Inc. v. Smart- *274 Bargains, Inc., 2008 UT 55, ¶ 18 , 192 P.3d 858 . 2013Overstock. com, Inc. v. Smart- *274 Bargains, Inc., 2008 UT 55, ¶ 18 , 192 P.3d 858 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Allen v. Ortez
green
1 sentence2001The rule enunciated in Wright is thus congruent with the second element of the test set forth in Ortes, that the allegedly defamatory statements "have some reference to the subject matter of the proceeding." In Ortez, this court enunciated the three-part rule in use today because "[nJeither in Wright nor in Beesley did we have occasion to elaborate on *900 the elements of the cause of action." 802 P.2d at 1312 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
DeBry v. Godbe
green
2 sentences2001It has "some reference to the subject matter of the proceeding." As we have said previously, in order to satisfy the second part of the judicial proceeding privilege, "[a] statement need not be relevant or pertinent to the judicial proceeding from an evidentiary point of view for the privilege to apply." DeBry, 1999 UT 111 at ¶ 16 , 992 P.2d 979 ; see also Keeton et al., supra at 817-18 . 2001It has "some reference to the subject matter of the proceeding." As we have said previously, in order to satisfy the second part of the judicial proceeding privilege, "[a] statement need not be relevant or pertinent to the judicial proceeding from an evidentiary point of view for the privilege to apply." DeBry, 1999 UT 111 at ¶ 16 , 992 P.2d 979 ; see also Keeton et al., supra at 817-18 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.