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 1925–2025 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. Dowhaniukgreen1 sentence2025Utah Code § 77-20-207(1)(b); see also State v. Groce, 2024 UT App 166, ¶ 57 , 560 P.3d 200 (“[I]f circumstances have not materially changed since the entry of the then-operative 20250013-CA 12 2025 UT App 100 State v. Dowhaniuk pretrial status order, the governing statute requires the district court to deny the request for modification on that ground alone, without engaging anew in the substance of the inquiry discussed in the previous section and mandated by Utah law.”), cert. denied, 568 P.3d 260 (Utah 2025). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grocegreen1 sentence2025Utah Code § 77-20-207(1)(b); see also State v. Groce, 2024 UT App 166, ¶ 57 , 560 P.3d 200 (“[I]f circumstances have not materially changed since the entry of the then-operative 20250013-CA 12 2025 UT App 100 State v. Dowhaniuk pretrial status order, the governing statute requires the district court to deny the request for modification on that ground alone, without engaging anew in the substance of the inquiry discussed in the previous section and mandated by Utah law.”), cert. denied, 568 P.3d 260 (Utah 2025). | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. Stategreen2 sentences2021We quote and cite the current statute because the amendments do not impact the substance of our analysis. 12 Cite as: 2021 UT 52 Opinion of the Court PCRA claims within one year after the time period expired for him to petition the United States Supreme Court for certiorari. 2021See id. § 78B-9-107(2)(c). | 1 | 1 |
Citizens for a Better Environment v. The Steel Company, Also Known as Chicago Steel and Pickling Companygreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., Citizens for a Better Env't v. Steel Co., 230 F.3d 923, 926 (7th Cir.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Workman v. Henriegreen1 sentence2007The Utah Supreme Court held that the defendant had waived any right to complain about the substance of the instruction on appeal when he failed to indicate at trial what more should have been done. 6 See id. at 1037. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hallsgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Halls, 2006 UT App 142 , 134 P.3d 1160 ; State v. Austin, 2006 UT App 184U, 2006 WL 1174241 ; State v. Kinne, 2006 UT App 156U, 2006 WL 1030328 . 2007See State v. Halls, 2006 UT App 142 , 134 P.3d 1160 ; State v. Austin, 2006 UT App 184U, 2006 WL 1174241 ; State v. Kinne, 2006 UT App 156U, 2006 WL 1030328 . | 1 | 1 |
THORUP BROS. CONST. v. Auditing Div.green1 sentence2001Construction, Inc. v. Auditing Division, 860 P.2d 324, 327 (Utah 1993), makes it clear that a contractor is not a real property contractor and thus liable for sales tax on the purchase of personal property simply by converting personal property into real property. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
RJW Media Inc. v. Heath
green
2 sentences2021In the second case—this case—the district court made a determination of harmlessness and accordingly declined to impose sanctions under rule 26(d)(4). ¶48 In RJW Media Inc. v. Heath, 2017 UT App 34 , 392 P.3d 956 , we warned litigants about the need for proper and complete disclosures, albeit in the specific context of expert disclosures, but the substance of the warning is equally salient for initial disclosures: The requirement to provide a summary of expected testimony is not merely a matter of form. 2021In the second case—this case—the district court made a determination of harmlessness and accordingly declined to impose sanctions under rule 26(d)(4). ¶48 In RJW Media Inc. v. Heath, 2017 UT App 34 , 392 P.3d 956 , we warned litigants about the need for proper and complete disclosures, albeit in the specific context of expert disclosures, but the substance of the warning is equally salient for initial disclosures: The requirement to provide a summary of expected testimony is not merely a matter of form. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Met
green
2 sentences2018Id. ¶ 104 n.25. 2018Id. ¶ 104 n.25. 6Section 76-1-402 contains two merger tests. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Valdez
green
2 sentences2012As we have noted, trial courts ought to resolve Batson objections while the iron is hot since "[the burden-shifting framework of Batson is best implemented if it is litigated while the peremptory strikes are fresh in the minds of both the court and the litigants." Valdez, 2006 UT 39, ¶ 42 , 140 P.3d 1219 . 2012As we have noted, trial courts ought to resolve Batson objections while the iron is hot since "[the burden-shifting framework of Batson is best implemented if it is litigated while the peremptory strikes are fresh in the minds of both the court and the litigants." Valdez, 2006 UT 39, ¶ 42 , 140 P.3d 1219 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Rosa-Re
green
2 sentences2012This prerequisite entails not only specificity in the substance of the challenge, but also a critical timing element: The objecting party must raise and press his challenge "before the jury is sworn and the venire dismissed." Rosa-Re, 2008 UT 53, ¶ 14 , 190 P.3d 1259 . 117 This timing element is not drawn arbitrarily. 2012This prerequisite entails not only specificity in the substance of the challenge, but also a critical timing element: The objecting party must raise and press his challenge "before the jury is sworn and the venire dismissed." Rosa-Re, 2008 UT 53, ¶ 14 , 190 P.3d 1259 . 117 This timing element is not drawn arbitrarily. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Reyes
green
2 sentences2007However, because we conclude that no error occurred and because we deem it advisable to treat the substance of the claim in this matter due to confusion that has arisen as a result of our opinion in State v. Reyes, 2005 UT 33 , 116 P.3d 305 , we take this opportunity to clarify the use of the terms "eliminate" and "obviate" in reasonable doubt jury instructions. 4 We review the contested reasonable doubt instructions for correctness because "whether a jury instruction correctly states the law presents a question of law." State v. Cruz, 2005 UT 45, ¶ 16 , 122 P.3d 543 (internal quotation marks 2007However, because we conclude that no error occurred and because we deem it advisable to treat the substance of the claim in this matter due to confusion that has arisen as a result of our opinion in State v. Reyes, 2005 UT 33 , 116 P.3d 305 , we take this opportunity to clarify the use of the terms "eliminate" and "obviate" in reasonable doubt jury instructions. 4 We review the contested reasonable doubt instructions for correctness because "whether a jury instruction correctly states the law presents a question of law." State v. Cruz, 2005 UT 45, ¶ 16 , 122 P.3d 543 (internal quotation marks | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Cruz
green
2 sentences2007However, because we conclude that no error occurred and because we deem it advisable to treat the substance of the claim in this matter due to confusion that has arisen as a result of our opinion in State v. Reyes, 2005 UT 33 , 116 P.3d 305 , we take this opportunity to clarify the use of the terms "eliminate" and "obviate" in reasonable doubt jury instructions. 4 We review the contested reasonable doubt instructions for correctness because "whether a jury instruction correctly states the law presents a question of law." State v. Cruz, 2005 UT 45, ¶ 16 , 122 P.3d 543 (internal quotation marks 2007However, because we conclude that no error occurred and because we deem it advisable to treat the substance of the claim in this matter due to confusion that has arisen as a result of our opinion in State v. Reyes, 2005 UT 33 , 116 P.3d 305 , we take this opportunity to clarify the use of the terms "eliminate" and "obviate" in reasonable doubt jury instructions. 4 We review the contested reasonable doubt instructions for correctness because "whether a jury instruction correctly states the law presents a question of law." State v. Cruz, 2005 UT 45, ¶ 16 , 122 P.3d 543 (internal quotation marks | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences2007In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). 2007In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Herrera
green
2 sentences2004A. Nature of the Constitutional Challenge ¶ 27 A statute can be “unconstitutional either on its face or as applied to the facts of a given case.” State v. Herrera, 1999 UT 64 ,¶ 4 n. 2, 993 P.2d 854 . 2004A. Nature of the Constitutional Challenge ¶ 27 A statute can be “unconstitutional either on its face or as applied to the facts of a given case.” State v. Herrera, 1999 UT 64 ,¶ 4 n. 2, 993 P.2d 854 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Manuel Delgado
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 890 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Morrison
green
2 sentences2004In reviewing for vagueness, we "presume! ] that the statute is valid, and ... resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of constitutionality.” State v. Morrison, 2001 UT 73 ,11 5, 31 P.3d 547 . 2004In reviewing for vagueness, we "presume! ] that the statute is valid, and ... resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of constitutionality.” State v. Morrison, 2001 UT 73 ,11 5, 31 P.3d 547 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Wells v. Wells
neutral
2 sentences1981Wells v. Wells, 2 Utah 2d 241 , 272 P.2d 167 (1954). 1981Wells v. Wells, 2 Utah 2d 241 , 272 P.2d 167 (1954). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Naylor v. Floor
neutral
2 sentences1925Naylor et al. v. Floor, 51 Utah, 382 , 170 P. 971 , and Kendall v. Samuel McIntyre Inv. 1925Naylor et al. v. Floor, 51 Utah, 382 , 170 P. 971 , and Kendall v. Samuel McIntyre Inv. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.