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 2004–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barnard v. Wassermanngreen2 sentences2011See generally Griffith v. Griffith, 1999 UT 78, ¶¶ 14-16 , 985 P.2d 255 (upholding the trial court's inherent power to award attorney fees where one attorney brought a motion without merit); Barnard v. Wassermann, 855 P2d 243, 249 (Utah 1993) ("[Clourts of general jurisdiction ... possess certain inherent power to impose monetary sanctions on attorneys who by their conduct thwart the court's scheduling and movement of cases through the court."). 2011See Utah Code Ann. § T8A-2-201 (2008) (including within the inherent powers of a court, the power to "enforce order in the proceedings before it," to "compel obedience," and to "control ... the persons connected with a judicial proceeding"); Barnard v. Wassermann, 855 P.2d 243, 249 (Utah 1998) ("[Clourts of general jurisdiction ... possess certain inherent power to impose monetary sanctions on attorneys who by their conduct thwart the court's scheduling and movement of cases through the court."). | 2 | 2 |
Griffith v. Griffithgreen2 sentences2012See generally Cadlerock Joint Venture II, LP v. Envelope Packaging of Utah, Inc., 2011 UT App 98, ¶ 17 , 251 P.3d 837 (acknowledging that a trial court's power to impose monetary sanctions is granted by Utah Code section 78A-2-201 (citing Utah Code Ann. § 78A-2-201 (2008))); see also Miles, 2011 UT App 359, ¶ 16 , 269 P.3d 958 (upholding a trial court's inherent power to impose fees where a party failed to appear at a scheduled hearing); Griffith v. Griffith 1999 UT 78, ¶ 12 , 985 P.2d 255 (upholding a trial court's "inherent powers to impose monetary sanctions on an attorney for wasting judic 2012See generally Cadlerock Joint Venture II, LP v. Envelope Packaging of Utah, Inc., 2011 UT App 98, ¶ 17 , 251 P.3d 837 (acknowledging that a trial court's power to impose monetary sanctions is granted by Utah Code section 78A-2-201 (citing Utah Code Ann. § 78A-2-201 (2008))); see also Miles, 2011 UT App 359, ¶ 16 , 269 P.3d 958 (upholding a trial court's inherent power to impose fees where a party failed to appear at a scheduled hearing); Griffith v. Griffith 1999 UT 78, ¶ 12 , 985 P.2d 255 (upholding a trial court's "inherent powers to impose monetary sanctions on an attorney for wasting judic | 1 | 3 |
C.R. v. Department of Children & Familiesgreen1 sentence2020STAT. tit. 10A, § 1-4-905 (same); see also, e.g., C.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 225 So.3d 393, 394-95 (Fla. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Miles v. Milesgreen2 sentences2012See generally Cadlerock Joint Venture II, LP v. Envelope Packaging of Utah, Inc., 2011 UT App 98, ¶ 17 , 251 P.3d 837 (acknowledging that a trial court's power to impose monetary sanctions is granted by Utah Code section 78A-2-201 (citing Utah Code Ann. § 78A-2-201 (2008))); see also Miles, 2011 UT App 359, ¶ 16 , 269 P.3d 958 (upholding a trial court's inherent power to impose fees where a party failed to appear at a scheduled hearing); Griffith v. Griffith 1999 UT 78, ¶ 12 , 985 P.2d 255 (upholding a trial court's "inherent powers to impose monetary sanctions on an attorney for wasting judic 2012See generally Cadlerock Joint Venture II, LP v. Envelope Packaging of Utah, Inc., 2011 UT App 98, ¶ 17 , 251 P.3d 837 (acknowledging that a trial court's power to impose monetary sanctions is granted by Utah Code section 78A-2-201 (citing Utah Code Ann. § 78A-2-201 (2008))); see also Miles, 2011 UT App 359, ¶ 16 , 269 P.3d 958 (upholding a trial court's inherent power to impose fees where a party failed to appear at a scheduled hearing); Griffith v. Griffith 1999 UT 78, ¶ 12 , 985 P.2d 255 (upholding a trial court's "inherent powers to impose monetary sanctions on an attorney for wasting judic | 1 | 1 |
Cadlerock Joint Venture II, LP v. Envelope Packaging of Utah, Inc.green2 sentences2012See generally Cadlerock Joint Venture II, LP v. Envelope Packaging of Utah, Inc., 2011 UT App 98, ¶ 17 , 251 P.3d 837 (acknowledging that a trial court's power to impose monetary sanctions is granted by Utah Code section 78A-2-201 (citing Utah Code Ann. § 78A-2-201 (2008))); see also Miles, 2011 UT App 359, ¶ 16 , 269 P.3d 958 (upholding a trial court's inherent power to impose fees where a party failed to appear at a scheduled hearing); Griffith v. Griffith 1999 UT 78, ¶ 12 , 985 P.2d 255 (upholding a trial court's "inherent powers to impose monetary sanctions on an attorney for wasting judic 2012See generally Cadlerock Joint Venture II, LP v. Envelope Packaging of Utah, Inc., 2011 UT App 98, ¶ 17 , 251 P.3d 837 (acknowledging that a trial court's power to impose monetary sanctions is granted by Utah Code section 78A-2-201 (citing Utah Code Ann. § 78A-2-201 (2008))); see also Miles, 2011 UT App 359, ¶ 16 , 269 P.3d 958 (upholding a trial court's inherent power to impose fees where a party failed to appear at a scheduled hearing); Griffith v. Griffith 1999 UT 78, ¶ 12 , 985 P.2d 255 (upholding a trial court's "inherent powers to impose monetary sanctions on an attorney for wasting judic | 1 | 1 |
Salt Lake City v. Dorman-Lighgreen1 sentence2011However, "[dlismissal of a criminal information as a sanction against the prosecutor is rarely appropriate, even if the prosecutor is in contempt of court." Salt Lake City v. Dorman-Ligh, 912 P.2d 452, 456 (Utah Ct.App.1996) (reversing the trial court's order dismissing criminal charges with prejudice as a sanction for the prosecutor's failure to comply with the court's order to be present and ready to proceed at a scheduled hearing). 5 Although the magistrate erred in dismissing the charges with prejudice as a sanction for the prosecution's delay, in appropriate circumstances, sanctions may b | 1 | 1 |
Valley Bank & Trust Co. v. Wilkengreen1 sentence2004See id. at 493-94 . | 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. Hembree
green
1 sentence2025In addition, the State took issue with Hembree’s assertion that the record demonstrated an intent on Hembree’s part to appeal his sentence, offering its view that Hembree had received “the lightest possible 20230888-CA 5 2025 UT App 166 State v. Hembree sentence he could have received under the law” and therefore had no incentive to appeal his sentence. ¶13 The court scheduled the matter for oral argument, and just days before the scheduled hearing, Appellate Counsel filed a declaration in which he asserted that he had spoken with Hembree and that Hembree had told him, among other things, that | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Rouse v. Labor Commission
green
1 sentence2024Code R602-2- (continued…) 20220797-CA 24 2024 UT App 77 Rouse v. Labor Commission appropriate finding that live testimony would be improper as ‘irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence’” and that “her order is conclusory and devoid of any significant analysis,” but the ALJ was not required to use these exact words, and she did provide a reasonable basis for her decision (including, in effect, that the evidence would be unduly repetitious). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Patton
green
1 sentence2023I DID NOT steal them as I was accused of.” Patton attributed the circumstances to his medical 20210681-CA 6 2023 UT App 33 State v. Patton condition: “My memory and my Chemo Brain was why I could not find the misplaced medication and was accused of taking or stealing it[,] but I didn’t[,] and they found the prescription I was originally accused of taking which I did not do.” That same day, the court scheduled a hearing to determine Patton’s indigency status on appeal. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Cook Martin Poulson v. Smith
green
1 sentence2021A praecipe, also spelled precipe, is a common law “writ ordering a defendant to do some act or to explain why inaction is appropriate.” Praecipe, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). 20190412-CA 4 2021 UT App 60 Cook Martin Poulson v. Smith Conference, in which it asked the district court for “a telephone conference to secure guidance from this Court regarding the next steps that this Court will expect CMP to follow in order to seek sanctions for [Smith’s] contempt.” CMP did not request an order to show cause or file a motion for sanctions. ¶11 The court scheduled a hearing at CMP’s request | 1 | 2021–2021 |
McQuarrie v. McQuarrie
green
1 sentence2019It explained that the parties’ stipulation that “made the basis of the [Decree was] going to be followed” and the only issue worth pursuing in the case was 20170956-CA 7 2019 UT App 147 McQuarrie v. McQuarrie “the possibility of the allegation of fraud.” The court determined that alimony did not terminate upon Janette’s remarriage because the Decree “could be fairly read and interpreted that the parties either negotiated away—or clearly understood . . . what those alimony provisions were.” And “[e]ven though they may have been characterized as . . . alimony, when you look at the way they were | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Kallin
green
1 sentence2018Prior to the hearing, the State filed a written response to Burnett's objection, citing State v. Kallin , 877 P.2d 138 , 141 (Utah 1994), and stating that Expert would simply testify that certain symptoms were "consistent with" sexual abuse. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.