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.
11 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1940–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Branch v. Western Petroleum, Inc.green2 sentences1998Utah courts recognize that "[w]hen the conditions giving rise to a nuisance are also a violation of a statutory prohibition, those conditions constitute a nuisance per se." Branch v. Western Petroleum, Inc., 657 P.2d 267, 276 (Utah 1982); accord Turnbaugh v. Anderson, 793 P.2d 939, 943 (Utah Ct.App.1990); see also Erickson v. Sorensen, 877 P.2d 144, 149 (Utah Ct.App.1994) ("Nuisance per se exists when the conduct creating the nuisance is also specifically prohibited by statute not just that it is unlawful in the *779 broader sense necessary to show a nuisance under the public nuisance statut 1998Utah courts recognize that “[w]hen the conditions giving rise to a nuisance are also a violation of a statutory prohibition, those conditions constitute a nuisance per se.” Branch v. Western Petroleum, Inc., 657 P.2d 267, 276 (Utah 1982); accord Turnbaugh v. Anderson, 793 P.2d 939, 943 (Utah Ct.App.1990); see also Erickson v. Sorensen, 877 P.2d 144, 149 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (“Nuisance per se exists when the conduct creating the nuisance is also specifically prohibited by statute — not just that it is unlawful in the broader sense necessary to show a nuisance under the public nuisance statute.”). | 3 | 3 |
Ledfors v. Emery County School Districtgreen1 sentence2002Dist., 849 P.2d 1162, 1164 (Utah 1993). [2] In addition, Branam and Williams dealt with the language of a different statute. | 1 | 1 |
O'Neal v. Department of the Armygreen1 sentence1998See, e.g., Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co., 440 Mich. 293 , 487 N.W.2d 715, 721 (1992); Berry v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 989 F.2d 822, 829 (5th Cir.1993); Adams v. Star Enters., 51 F.3d 417 , 423 (4th Cir.1995); O’Neal v. Department of Army, 852 F.Supp. 327, 336-37 (M.D.Pa.1994); Santa Fe Partnership v. ARCO Prods. | 1 | 1 |
James Berry, Sr., James Berry, Sr. v. The Armstrong Rubber Company, J. Wesley Cooper v. The Armstrong Rubber Companygreen1 sentence1998See, e.g., Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co., 440 Mich. 293 , 487 N.W.2d 715, 721 (1992); Berry v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 989 F.2d 822, 829 (5th Cir.1993); Adams v. Star Enters., 51 F.3d 417 , 423 (4th Cir.1995); O’Neal v. Department of Army, 852 F.Supp. 327, 336-37 (M.D.Pa.1994); Santa Fe Partnership v. ARCO Prods. | 1 | 1 |
Turnbaugh v. Andersongreen2 sentences1998Utah courts recognize that "[w]hen the conditions giving rise to a nuisance are also a violation of a statutory prohibition, those conditions constitute a nuisance per se." Branch v. Western Petroleum, Inc., 657 P.2d 267, 276 (Utah 1982); accord Turnbaugh v. Anderson, 793 P.2d 939, 943 (Utah Ct.App.1990); see also Erickson v. Sorensen, 877 P.2d 144, 149 (Utah Ct.App.1994) ("Nuisance per se exists when the conduct creating the nuisance is also specifically prohibited by statute not just that it is unlawful in the *779 broader sense necessary to show a nuisance under the public nuisance statut 1998Utah courts recognize that “[w]hen the conditions giving rise to a nuisance are also a violation of a statutory prohibition, those conditions constitute a nuisance per se.” Branch v. Western Petroleum, Inc., 657 P.2d 267, 276 (Utah 1982); accord Turnbaugh v. Anderson, 793 P.2d 939, 943 (Utah Ct.App.1990); see also Erickson v. Sorensen, 877 P.2d 144, 149 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (“Nuisance per se exists when the conduct creating the nuisance is also specifically prohibited by statute — not just that it is unlawful in the broader sense necessary to show a nuisance under the public nuisance statute.”). | 1 | 1 |
Erickson v. Sorensengreen2 sentences1998Utah courts recognize that "[w]hen the conditions giving rise to a nuisance are also a violation of a statutory prohibition, those conditions constitute a nuisance per se." Branch v. Western Petroleum, Inc., 657 P.2d 267, 276 (Utah 1982); accord Turnbaugh v. Anderson, 793 P.2d 939, 943 (Utah Ct.App.1990); see also Erickson v. Sorensen, 877 P.2d 144, 149 (Utah Ct.App.1994) ("Nuisance per se exists when the conduct creating the nuisance is also specifically prohibited by statute not just that it is unlawful in the *779 broader sense necessary to show a nuisance under the public nuisance statut 1998Utah courts recognize that “[w]hen the conditions giving rise to a nuisance are also a violation of a statutory prohibition, those conditions constitute a nuisance per se.” Branch v. Western Petroleum, Inc., 657 P.2d 267, 276 (Utah 1982); accord Turnbaugh v. Anderson, 793 P.2d 939, 943 (Utah Ct.App.1990); see also Erickson v. Sorensen, 877 P.2d 144, 149 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (“Nuisance per se exists when the conduct creating the nuisance is also specifically prohibited by statute — not just that it is unlawful in the broader sense necessary to show a nuisance under the public nuisance statute.”). | 1 | 1 |
Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co.green2 sentences1998See, e.g., Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co., 440 Mich. 293 , 487 N.W.2d 715, 721 (1992); Berry v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 989 F.2d 822, 829 (5th Cir.1993); Adams v. Star Enters., 51 F.3d 417 , 423 (4th Cir.1995); O’Neal v. Department of Army, 852 F.Supp. 327, 336-37 (M.D.Pa.1994); Santa Fe Partnership v. ARCO Prods. 1998See, e.g., Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co., 440 Mich. 293 , 487 N.W.2d 715, 721 (1992); Berry v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 989 F.2d 822, 829 (5th Cir.1993); Adams v. Star Enters., 51 F.3d 417 , 423 (4th Cir.1995); O’Neal v. Department of Army, 852 F.Supp. 327, 336-37 (M.D.Pa.1994); Santa Fe Partnership v. ARCO Prods. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Liley v. Cedar Springs Ranch Inc.
green
2 sentences2026“The grant or denial of summary judgment presents a question of law and is reviewed for correctness.” Liley v. Cedar Springs Ranch Inc., 2017 UT App 166, ¶ 11 , 405 P.3d 817 . 2026“The grant or denial of summary judgment presents a question of law and is reviewed for correctness.” Liley v. Cedar Springs Ranch Inc., 2017 UT App 166, ¶ 11 , 405 P.3d 817 . | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Rosser v. Elite Craft Homes
green
1 sentence2026CONCLUSION ¶43 We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on intentional trespass and conclude that Utah law does not 20231023-CA 17 2026 UT App 16 Rosser v. Elite Craft Homes recognize a claim for negligent trespass. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10847911
green
1 sentence2026“The grant or denial of summary judgment presents a question of law and is reviewed for 20231023-CA 5 2026 UT App 66 Rosser v. Elite Craft Homes correctness.” Liley v. Cedar Springs Ranch Inc., 2017 UT App 166, ¶ 11 , 405 P.3d 817 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Rynhart
green
1 sentence2025Rynhart also claims that the derivative issues related to this misdemeanor—the supervision history and supervision risk 20230262-CA 16 2025 UT App 148 State v. Rynhart point allocations—were erroneous. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
3 Dimensional Contractors v. Utah Associated
green
1 sentence2024We therefore do not further separately discuss the nuisance claim in connection with this discussion. 20210935-CA 32 2024 UT App 35 Utah Associated Mun. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
DAYNIGHT, LLC v. Mobilight, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016The district court specifically invoked the remedies available for spoliation of evidence under rule 87(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which were made avallable by rule 87(e). 1 T6 A similar case, Daynight LLC v. Mobilight, Inc., 2011 UT App 28 , 248 P.3d. 1010, involved an appeal of a decision to grant a motion for sanctions for spoliation and enter a default judgment, This court stated that the provision now appearing in rule 87(e) allowed a district court to take "any action authorized by [rule 37(b)(Q) ] if a party destroys, conceals, alters, tampers with or fails to preserve a d 2016The district court specifically invoked the remedies available for spoliation of evidence under rule 87(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which were made avallable by rule 87(e). 1 T6 A similar case, Daynight LLC v. Mobilight, Inc., 2011 UT App 28 , 248 P.3d. 1010, involved an appeal of a decision to grant a motion for sanctions for spoliation and enter a default judgment, This court stated that the provision now appearing in rule 87(e) allowed a district court to take "any action authorized by [rule 37(b)(Q) ] if a party destroys, conceals, alters, tampers with or fails to preserve a d | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Adams v. Star Enterprise
green
1 sentence1998See, e.g., Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co., 440 Mich. 293 , 487 N.W.2d 715, 721 (1992); Berry v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 989 F.2d 822, 829 (5th Cir.1993); Adams v. Star Enters., 51 F.3d 417 , 423 (4th Cir.1995); O’Neal v. Department of Army, 852 F.Supp. 327, 336-37 (M.D.Pa.1994); Santa Fe Partnership v. ARCO Prods. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Philip Mowrer, as Administrator of the Estate of Estelle Lowe, Deceased v. Ashland Oil & Refining Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1994In addition, "[t]he doctrine of nuisance `has reference to the interests invaded, to the damage or harm inflicted, and not to any particular *148 kind of action or omission which has led to the invasion.'" Id. (quoting William L. 1994In addition, “[t]he doctrine of nuisance ‘has reference to the interests invaded, to the damage or harm inflicted, and not to any particular kind of action or omission which has led to the invasion.’ ” Id. (quoting William L. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Kallas
green
2 sentences1940The case of State v. Kallas, 97 Utah 492 , 94 P. 2d 414 , holds that proof of a single sale will not establish the corpus delicti where one is charged with maintaining a common nuisance in violation of Sec. 195, Chap. 48, Laws Utah 1985, as amended by Chap. 49, Laws Utah 1937, and subjecting property to forfeiture. 1940The case of State v. Kallas, 97 Utah 492 , 94 P. 2d 414 , holds that proof of a single sale will not establish the corpus delicti where one is charged with maintaining a common nuisance in violation of Sec. 195, Chap. 48, Laws Utah 1985, as amended by Chap. 49, Laws Utah 1937, and subjecting property to forfeiture. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
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.