13 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1937–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2017See State v. Johnson , 2013 UT App 276 , ¶ 8, 316 P.3d 994 (holding untimely a challenge based on counsel's failure to object to the continuance of trial, because the timeliness requirement "prevents defendants from sandbagging the prosecution by waiting until the only available remedy for the alleged error is outright dismissal or a new trial" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 2017See State v. Johnson , 2013 UT App 276 , ¶ 8, 316 P.3d 994 (holding untimely a challenge based on counsel's failure to object to the continuance of trial, because the timeliness requirement "prevents defendants from sandbagging the prosecution by waiting until the only available remedy for the alleged error is outright dismissal or a new trial" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence2013The timeliness requirement is "a pre-condition to appellate review because entertaining belatedly raised issues sanction[s] the practice of withholding positions that should properly be presented to the trial court but which may be withheld for the purpose of seeking a reversal on appeal and a new trial or dismissal." State v. Brown, 856 P.2d 358, 361-62 (Utah Ct.App. 1993) (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stanfordgreen1 sentence2013Intermountain Power Agency, 828 P.2d 459, 461 (Utah 1991), and before entry of judgment or dismissal, see Jenner, 659 P.2d at 1074 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cantugreen1 sentence2006Id. at 592-93, 596. *1230 ¶ 33 However, in Redd v. Negley, 785 P.2d 1098 (Utah 1989), the timeliness of a challenge to the composition of the jury was squarely before the court. | 1 | 1 |
Busche v. Salt Lake Countygreen2 sentences2005See Busche v. Salt Lake County, 2001 UT App 111,¶6 , 26 P.3d 862 (discussing Utah's liberal standards for the construction of pleading language). ¶12 The question of whether EMS's motion was dilatory is a closer one. "[A] party's rule 56(f) motion for a continuance is not dilatory if the party has already initiated discovery proceedings, diligently seeks access to information that is within the sole control of the adverse party, and is denied an adequate opportunity to conduct the desired discovery." Western Dairymen, 2002 UT 39 at ¶27 ; see also Crossland Sav., 877 P.2d at 1243-44 (addressing 2005See Busche v. Salt Lake County, 2001 UT App 111,¶6 , 26 P.3d 862 (discussing Utah's liberal standards for the construction of pleading language). ¶12 The question of whether EMS's motion was dilatory is a closer one. "[A] party's rule 56(f) motion for a continuance is not dilatory if the party has already initiated discovery proceedings, diligently seeks access to information that is within the sole control of the adverse party, and is denied an adequate opportunity to conduct the desired discovery." Western Dairymen, 2002 UT 39 at ¶27 ; see also Crossland Sav., 877 P.2d at 1243-44 (addressing | 1 | 1 |
Salt Lake County v. Western Dairymen Cooperative, Inc.green1 sentence2005See Busche v. Salt Lake County, 2001 UT App 111,¶6 , 26 P.3d 862 (discussing Utah's liberal standards for the construction of pleading language). ¶12 The question of whether EMS's motion was dilatory is a closer one. "[A] party's rule 56(f) motion for a continuance is not dilatory if the party has already initiated discovery proceedings, diligently seeks access to information that is within the sole control of the adverse party, and is denied an adequate opportunity to conduct the desired discovery." Western Dairymen, 2002 UT 39 at ¶27 ; see also Crossland Sav., 877 P.2d at 1243-44 (addressing | 1 | 1 |
Strand v. Associated Students of the University of Utahgreen1 sentence2005See Busche v. Salt Lake County, 2001 UT App 111,¶6 , 26 P.3d 862 (discussing Utah's liberal standards for the construction of pleading language). ¶12 The question of whether EMS's motion was dilatory is a closer one. "[A] party's rule 56(f) motion for a continuance is not dilatory if the party has already initiated discovery proceedings, diligently seeks access to information that is within the sole control of the adverse party, and is denied an adequate opportunity to conduct the desired discovery." Western Dairymen, 2002 UT 39 at ¶27 ; see also Crossland Sav., 877 P.2d at 1243-44 (addressing | 1 | 1 |
Crossland Savings v. Hatchgreen1 sentence2005See Busche v. Salt Lake County, 2001 UT App 111,¶6 , 26 P.3d 862 (discussing Utah's liberal standards for the construction of pleading language). ¶12 The question of whether EMS's motion was dilatory is a closer one. "[A] party's rule 56(f) motion for a continuance is not dilatory if the party has already initiated discovery proceedings, diligently seeks access to information that is within the sole control of the adverse party, and is denied an adequate opportunity to conduct the desired discovery." Western Dairymen, 2002 UT 39 at ¶27 ; see also Crossland Sav., 877 P.2d at 1243-44 (addressing | 1 | 1 |
Cox v. Wintersgreen1 sentence2005See Busche v. Salt Lake County, 2001 UT App 111,¶6 , 26 P.3d 862 (discussing Utah's liberal standards for the construction of pleading language). ¶12 The question of whether EMS's motion was dilatory is a closer one. "[A] party's rule 56(f) motion for a continuance is not dilatory if the party has already initiated discovery proceedings, diligently seeks access to information that is within the sole control of the adverse party, and is denied an adequate opportunity to conduct the desired discovery." Western Dairymen, 2002 UT 39 at ¶27 ; see also Crossland Sav., 877 P.2d at 1243-44 (addressing | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leegreen1 sentence1993Utah courts consider timeliness a pre-condition to appellate review because entertaining belatedly raised issues “sanction[s] the *362 practice of withholding positions that should properly be presented to the trial court but which may be withheld for the purpose of seeking a reversal on appeal and a new trial or dismissal.” State v. Lee, 633 P.2d 48, 53 (Utah 1981); State v. Webb, 790 P.2d 65, 78 (Utah App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Webbgreen1 sentence1993Utah courts consider timeliness a pre-condition to appellate review because entertaining belatedly raised issues “sanction[s] the *362 practice of withholding positions that should properly be presented to the trial court but which may be withheld for the purpose of seeking a reversal on appeal and a new trial or dismissal.” State v. Lee, 633 P.2d 48, 53 (Utah 1981); State v. Webb, 790 P.2d 65, 78 (Utah App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Klein v. Kleingreen1 sentence1985See also Klein, 544 P.2d at 476 (withdrawal one day after stipulation in divorce action rejected where trial court considered decree just and reasonable). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sanpete America, LLC v. Willardsen
green
2 sentences2017A district court judge "err[s] as a matter of law in granting [an] untimely rule 59 motion." Sanpete Am., LLC v. Willardsen , 2011 UT 48 , ¶ 66, 269 P.3d 118 . 2017A district court judge "err[s] as a matter of law in granting [an] untimely rule 59 motion." Sanpete Am., LLC v. Willardsen , 2011 UT 48 , ¶ 66, 269 P.3d 118 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Craig v. Provo City
green
1 sentence2016The Governmental Immunity Act charts a middle course between the parties’ positions: The Act is neither perfectly all-encompassing nor entirely open to supplementation; it is all-encompassing as to the terms of the (continued…) 10 Cite as: 2016 UT 40 Opinion of the Court standards that dictate the timeliness of a claim asserted against the government. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Jenner v. Real Estate Services
green
2 sentences2013The timeliness requirement is designed to minimize interference with "the rights of existing parties" and "the orderly processes of the court." Id. at 1074 . 124 Generally, a motion to intervene is timely if it is filed before the "final settlement of all issues by all parties," see Millard Cnty. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n ex rel. 2013Intermountain Power Agency, 828 P.2d 459, 461 (Utah 1991), and before entry of judgment or dismissal, see Jenner, 659 P.2d at 1074 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Winfield
green
2 sentences2012To the extent that the Restoration Network did raise the claim, its argument was "so eryptic and vague that [it] did not satisfy the [preservation rule's] specificity requirement." State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 27 , 128 P.3d 1171 . 1146 The Restoration Network argues that it also preserved its claim regarding the timeliness of the hearing in its Objection to Revised Proposed Order of Judgment. 2012To the extent that the Restoration Network did raise the claim, its argument was "so eryptic and vague that [it] did not satisfy the [preservation rule's] specificity requirement." State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 27 , 128 P.3d 1171 . 1146 The Restoration Network argues that it also preserved its claim regarding the timeliness of the hearing in its Objection to Revised Proposed Order of Judgment. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Harley Davidson v. Workforce Appeals Board of the Utah Department of Workforce Services
green
2 sentences2006Harley Davidson of N. Utah v. Workforce Appeals Bd., 2005 UT 38, ¶ 16 , 116 P.3d 349 . 115 In this case, it is undisputed that plaintiffs fulfilled this jurisdictional requirement by filing a timely notice of appeal. 2006Harley Davidson of N. Utah v. Workforce Appeals Bd., 2005 UT 38, ¶ 16 , 116 P.3d 349 . 115 In this case, it is undisputed that plaintiffs fulfilled this jurisdictional requirement by filing a timely notice of appeal. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Redd v. Negley
green
1 sentence2006Id. at 592-93, 596. *1230 ¶ 33 However, in Redd v. Negley, 785 P.2d 1098 (Utah 1989), the timeliness of a challenge to the composition of the jury was squarely before the court. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Bankhead
green
1 sentence2006Furthermore, a survey of Utah law indicates that it is a well established principle that Batson challenges must be raised both before the jury is sworn and before the remainder of the venire is dismissed in order to be deemed timely. ¶27 In State v. Bankhead, 727 P.2d 216 (Utah 1986), a case decided by this court prior to Batson , we considered the timeliness of a challenge to the composition of the jury. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
National Grocery Co. v. Pratt-Low Preserving Co.
neutral
2 sentences1937National Grocery Co. v. Pratt-Low Preserving Co., 170 Wash. 575 , 17 P. (2d) 51, 54 , In this latter case the facts are somewhat similar to those in the instant case. 1937National Grocery Co. v. Pratt-Low Preserving Co., 170 Wash. 575 , 17 P. (2d) 51, 54 , In this latter case the facts are somewhat similar to those in the instant case. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
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.