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.
12 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2026 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. Verdegreen2 sentences2020To evaluate them both, it is important to articulate the improbable “rare misfortune.” ¶38 To satisfy the foundational requirement of similarity, the similarity of the past act need not be “as great as that necessary to prove identity under a ‘pattern’ theory,” but it still needs to be significant enough to “suggest a decreased likelihood of coincidence.” Verde, 2012 UT 60, ¶ 58 . 2017First, under materiality, “[t]he issue for which the uncharged misconduct evidence is offered ‘must be in bona fide dispute.’”56 The aim of this foundational requirement is to ensure “a careful evaluation of the true—and predominant—purpose of any evidence proffered under rule 404(b).” 57 ¶ 36 Second, under the similarity requirement, “the similarities between the charged and uncharged incidents must be ‘sufficient to dispel any realistic possibility of independent invention.’”58 This foundational requirement aids in assessing the probative value of a body of prior bad acts evidence. “[T]he mo | 1 | 3 |
State v. Relyeagreen2 sentences2026See State v. Relyea, 2012 UT App 55, ¶ 29 , 288 P.3d 278 . 2026See State v. Relyea, 2012 UT App 55, ¶ 29 , 288 P.3d 278 . | 1 | 1 |
In re K.T.B.green1 sentence2024See, e.g., In re K.T.B., 2020 UT 51, ¶ 32 ; Jones v. Jones, 2015 UT 84, ¶ 26 , 359 P.3d 603 ; Jensen ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cuttlergreen1 sentence2017First, under materiality, “[t]he issue for which the uncharged misconduct evidence is offered ‘must be in bona fide dispute.’”56 The aim of this foundational requirement is to ensure “a careful evaluation of the true—and predominant—purpose of any evidence proffered under rule 404(b).” 57 ¶ 36 Second, under the similarity requirement, “the similarities between the charged and uncharged incidents must be ‘sufficient to dispel any realistic possibility of independent invention.’”58 This foundational requirement aids in assessing the probative value of a body of prior bad acts evidence. “[T]he mo | 1 | 1 |
State v. Metgreen2 sentences2017First, under materiality, “[t]he issue for which the uncharged misconduct evidence is offered ‘must be in bona fide dispute.’”56 The aim of this foundational requirement is to ensure “a careful evaluation of the true—and predominant—purpose of any evidence proffered under rule 404(b).” 57 ¶ 36 Second, under the similarity requirement, “the similarities between the charged and uncharged incidents must be ‘sufficient to dispel any realistic possibility of independent invention.’”58 This foundational requirement aids in assessing the probative value of a body of prior bad acts evidence. “[T]he mo 2017First, under materiality, “[t]he issue for which the uncharged misconduct evidence is offered ‘must be in bona fide dispute.’”56 The aim of this foundational requirement is to ensure “a careful evaluation of the true—and predominant—purpose of any evidence proffered under rule 404(b).” 57 ¶ 36 Second, under the similarity requirement, “the similarities between the charged and uncharged incidents must be ‘sufficient to dispel any realistic possibility of independent invention.’”58 This foundational requirement aids in assessing the probative value of a body of prior bad acts evidence. “[T]he mo | 1 | 1 |
Roy M. Roberts v. Sgt. George Hollocher Det. Al Napier, Acting With Others Det. Gregory Skinnergreen1 sentence1992IPC cites Roberts v. Hollocher, 664 F.2d 200, 204 (8th Cir.1981) for the proposition that medical records, as a general rule, are admissible in a court of law as competent evidence under Rule 803(4) only if a party can satisfy the following two-prong foundational test: “(1) is declarant’s motive in making the statements consistent with' a desire to promote treatment? and (2) is it reasonable for the physician to rely on the information in his diagnosis or treatment?” IPC argues that the residuum rule requires the Commission to make the foregoing factual findings based on a residuum of competen | 1 | 1 |
Triplett v. Schwendimangreen1 sentence1989This is referred to as “bookending.” This court recently rejected the need for “bookending” as a foundational requirement for admission of breath test results. ■ In Triplett v. Schwendiman, 754 P.2d 87, 89 (Utah App.1988), we noted that “bookend-ing” was redundant and expensive. | 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. Baker
green
1 sentence2026We agree and hold that a mouth check is a foundational requirement for the admissibility of breath alcohol tests. ¶11 In Utah, the admissibility of a breath alcohol test result is contingent on the satisfaction of three foundational requirements originally derived from State v. Baker, 355 P.2d 806 (Wash. 1960) (en banc). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Tindley v. Salt Lake City School District
green
2 sentences2024Dist., 2005 UT 30, ¶ 29 , 116 P.3d 295 (cleaned up), corresponding as it does to the foundational principle of popular sovereignty, which is the “very essence” of our republican form of government, The Constitutional Convention: The Body Organizes and Begins Work, DESERET NEWS, July 6, 1887, at 4. ¶209 The appropriate standard of scrutiny for Plaintiffs’ claim that S.B. 200 violates the people’s right to reform their government through a citizen initiative is strict scrutiny.41 We have held that statutes infringing fundamental rights are subject to this level of review. 2024Dist., 2005 UT 30, ¶ 29 , 116 P.3d 295 (cleaned up), corresponding as it does to the foundational principle of popular sovereignty, which is the “very essence” of our republican form of government, The Constitutional Convention: The Body Organizes and Begins Work, DESERET NEWS, July 6, 1887, at 4. ¶209 The appropriate standard of scrutiny for Plaintiffs’ claim that S.B. 200 violates the people’s right to reform their government through a citizen initiative is strict scrutiny.41 We have held that statutes infringing fundamental rights are subject to this level of review. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Jones v. Jones
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g., In re K.T.B., 2020 UT 51, ¶ 32 ; Jones v. Jones, 2015 UT 84, ¶ 26 , 359 P.3d 603 ; Jensen ex rel. 2024See, e.g., In re K.T.B., 2020 UT 51, ¶ 32 ; Jones v. Jones, 2015 UT 84, ¶ 26 , 359 P.3d 603 ; Jensen ex rel. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Thornton
green
1 sentence2021To pick up on a theme we started in Thornton, see 2017 UT 9 , ¶ 54 & n.6, and continued in Argueta, a careful trial judge who wants her doctrine of chances ruling to be upheld on appeal will greatly increase the odds of affirmation if she carefully defines what the rare misfortune at issue is. 19 STATE v. RICHINS Opinion of the Court 2. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Richins
green
1 sentence2021Instead, we instruct courts applying the doctrine of chances to carefully define the rare occurrence, assiduously evaluate whether the foundational factors have been satisfied, conduct a rule 403 analysis that focuses on the unique unfair prejudice that can flow from the admission of prior-acts evidence, and explain their reasoning in a transparent manner. ¶96 Because the State failed to establish the relevant baseline frequency, the district court erred when it admitted the other-acts 28 Cite as: 2021 UT 50 Opinion of the Court evidence under the doctrine of chances. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Dunn v. United States
green
1 sentence2020In Dunn v. United States, the defendant was convicted of ―maintaining a common nuisance by keeping for sale at a specified place intoxicating liquor,‖ but was acquitted of possessing or selling such liquor. 284 U.S. 390 , 391–92 (1932). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Lowther
green
1 sentence2017First, under materiality, “[t]he issue for which the uncharged misconduct evidence is offered ‘must be in bona fide dispute.’”56 The aim of this foundational requirement is to ensure “a careful evaluation of the true—and predominant—purpose of any evidence proffered under rule 404(b).” 57 ¶ 36 Second, under the similarity requirement, “the similarities between the charged and uncharged incidents must be ‘sufficient to dispel any realistic possibility of independent invention.’”58 This foundational requirement aids in assessing the probative value of a body of prior bad acts evidence. “[T]he mo | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Vialpando
green
2 sentences2012In the alternative, the State contends that the trial court erred in excluding the test results because the fifteen‐minute observation period required by State v. Vialpando, 2004 UT App 95 , 89 P.3d 209 , should no longer be required due to changes in equipment and technology. 2012In the alternative, the State contends that the trial court erred in excluding the test results because the fifteen‐minute observation period required by State v. Vialpando, 2004 UT App 95 , 89 P.3d 209 , should no longer be required due to changes in equipment and technology. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Moore v. American Coal Co.
green
2 sentences2004Moore, 737 P.2d at 990 . 2004Moore, 737 P.2d at 990 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Wood v. Budge
green
1 sentence1978Wood v. Budge, 13 Utah 2d 359 , 374 P.2d 515 . . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.