11 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Swallow v. Kennardgreen2 sentences2024“And it is unnecessary, and moreover inappropriate, to even consider the issue of a meritorious defense unless the court is satisfied that a sufficient excuse has been shown.” Id. (quotation simplified); accord Swallow v. Kennard, 2008 UT App 134, ¶ 21 , 183 P.3d 1052 ; see also Board of Educ. of Granite School Dist. v. Cox, 384 P.2d 806, 808 (Utah 1963) (noting that the question of whether the movant proposed a meritorious defense “arises only after consideration of” “why” the movant “did not answer” and whether a “sufficient excuse” has been shown). ¶24 In the district court’s ruling on Pete 2024“And it is unnecessary, and moreover inappropriate, to even consider the issue of a meritorious defense unless the court is satisfied that a sufficient excuse has been shown.” Id. (quotation simplified); accord Swallow v. Kennard, 2008 UT App 134, ¶ 21 , 183 P.3d 1052 ; see also Board of Educ. of Granite School Dist. v. Cox, 384 P.2d 806, 808 (Utah 1963) (noting that the question of whether the movant proposed a meritorious defense “arises only after consideration of” “why” the movant “did not answer” and whether a “sufficient excuse” has been shown). ¶24 In the district court’s ruling on Pete | 1 | 1 |
Board of Education of the Granite School District v. Coxgreen2 sentences2024“And it is unnecessary, and moreover inappropriate, to even consider the issue of a meritorious defense unless the court is satisfied that a sufficient excuse has been shown.” Id. (quotation simplified); accord Swallow v. Kennard, 2008 UT App 134, ¶ 21 , 183 P.3d 1052 ; see also Board of Educ. of Granite School Dist. v. Cox, 384 P.2d 806, 808 (Utah 1963) (noting that the question of whether the movant proposed a meritorious defense “arises only after consideration of” “why” the movant “did not answer” and whether a “sufficient excuse” has been shown). ¶24 In the district court’s ruling on Pete 2024“And it is unnecessary, and moreover inappropriate, to even consider the issue of a meritorious defense unless the court is satisfied that a sufficient excuse has been shown.” Id. (quotation simplified); accord Swallow v. Kennard, 2008 UT App 134, ¶ 21 , 183 P.3d 1052 ; see also Board of Educ. of Granite School Dist. v. Cox, 384 P.2d 806, 808 (Utah 1963) (noting that the question of whether the movant proposed a meritorious defense “arises only after consideration of” “why” the movant “did not answer” and whether a “sufficient excuse” has been shown). ¶24 In the district court’s ruling on Pete | 1 | 1 |
State v. Farnworthgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Farnworth, 2018 UT App 23, ¶ 50 , 414 P.3d 1053 . 20180550-CA 15 2020 UT App 47 2020See State v. Farnworth, 2018 UT App 23, ¶ 50 , 414 P.3d 1053 . 20180550-CA 15 2020 UT App 47 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Petersongreen2 sentences2020We therefore deny Peterson’s motion because it fails to assert a nonspeculative allegation of facts concerning the existence of a conflict. 20180550-CA 5 2020 UT App 47 State v. Peterson the first time on appeal presents a question of law,” which we review for correctness. 2020See State v. Farnworth, 2018 UT App 23, ¶ 50 , 414 P.3d 1053 . 20180550-CA 15 2020 UT App 47 | 1 | 1 |
Behrens v. Raleigh Hills Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences2019See supra ¶39 nn.38,39 (citing Behrens v. Raleigh Hills Hosp., Inc. , 675 P.2d 1179 , 1182 (Utah 1983) ; Hjorth v. Whittenburg , 121 Utah 324 , 241 P.2d 907 , 908 (1952) ). 2019See supra ¶39 nn.38,39 (citing Behrens v. Raleigh Hills Hosp., Inc. , 675 P.2d 1179 , 1182 (Utah 1983) ; Hjorth v. Whittenburg , 121 Utah 324 , 241 P.2d 907 , 908 (1952) ). | 1 | 1 |
Hjorth v. Whittenburggreen2 sentences2019See supra ¶39 nn.38,39 (citing Behrens v. Raleigh Hills Hosp., Inc. , 675 P.2d 1179 , 1182 (Utah 1983) ; Hjorth v. Whittenburg , 121 Utah 324 , 241 P.2d 907 , 908 (1952) ). 2019See supra ¶39 nn.38,39 (citing Behrens v. Raleigh Hills Hosp., Inc. , 675 P.2d 1179 , 1182 (Utah 1983) ; Hjorth v. Whittenburg , 121 Utah 324 , 241 P.2d 907 , 908 (1952) ). | 1 | 1 |
Mahmood v. Rossgreen2 sentences2017Id. ¶34 The trial court denied Peterson’s motion for a directed verdict on the basis that the jury could make reasonable inferences based on the evidence to reach its verdict. [T]he distinction between reasonable inference and speculation is intensely fact-based. 2017See id. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Zerbstgreen2 sentences2008There, we stated the long held presumption that "where a defendant seeks to collaterally attack a court's judgment, we presume the regularity of the proceedings below." Lucero, 2005 UT 79, ¶ 24 , 125 P.3d 917 ; see also Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938) ("When collaterally attacked, the judgment of a court carries with it a presumption of regularity."). 2008There, we stated the long held presumption that "where a defendant seeks to collaterally attack a court's judgment, we presume the regularity of the proceedings below." Lucero, 2005 UT 79, ¶ 24 , 125 P.3d 917 ; see also Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938) ("When collaterally attacked, the judgment of a court carries with it a presumption of regularity."). | 1 | 1 |
Russell v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc.green1 sentence2002To prove such a claim, a plaintiff must show (a) that the defendant intentionally engaged in some conduct toward the plaintiff considered outrageous and intolerable in that it offends the generally accepted standards of decency and morality (b) with the purpose of inflicting emotional distress or where any reasonable person would have known that such would result, and (c) that severe emotional distress resulted as a direct result of the defendant's conduct. *1258 Russell v. Thomson Newspapers Inc., 842 P.2d 896, 905 (Utah 1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Asset Acceptance LLC v. Stocks
green
2 sentences2024“And it is unnecessary, and moreover inappropriate, to even consider the issue of a meritorious defense unless the court is satisfied that a sufficient excuse has been shown.” Id. (quotation simplified); accord Swallow v. Kennard, 2008 UT App 134, ¶ 21 , 183 P.3d 1052 ; see also Board of Educ. of Granite School Dist. v. Cox, 384 P.2d 806, 808 (Utah 1963) (noting that the question of whether the movant proposed a meritorious defense “arises only after consideration of” “why” the movant “did not answer” and whether a “sufficient excuse” has been shown). ¶24 In the district court’s ruling on Pete 2024“And it is unnecessary, and moreover inappropriate, to even consider the issue of a meritorious defense unless the court is satisfied that a sufficient excuse has been shown.” Id. (quotation simplified); accord Swallow v. Kennard, 2008 UT App 134, ¶ 21 , 183 P.3d 1052 ; see also Board of Educ. of Granite School Dist. v. Cox, 384 P.2d 806, 808 (Utah 1963) (noting that the question of whether the movant proposed a meritorious defense “arises only after consideration of” “why” the movant “did not answer” and whether a “sufficient excuse” has been shown). ¶24 In the district court’s ruling on Pete | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Peterson v. State
green
2 sentences2024We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 20220765-CA 25 2024 UT App 159 2024We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 20220765-CA 25 2024 UT App 159 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Big Game Forever v. Peterson
green
1 sentence2024Big Game and 20210792-CA 4 2024 UT App 78 Big Game Forever v. Peterson Peterson eventually filed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding whether the subcontractors’ identities were trade secrets and commercially sensitive information and whether the public interest in receiving the information outweighed the interest in restricting it under section 63G-2-404(7)(a). ¶10 The district court granted Peterson’s motion and denied Big Game’s motion. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Ott
green
2 sentences2020State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1, ¶ 16 , 247 P.3d 344 (cleaned up). 2020State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1, ¶ 16 , 247 P.3d 344 (cleaned up). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Peterson
green
1 sentence2019Accordingly, we affirm. 20180369-CA 11 2019 UT App 193 | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Martinez v. Media-Paymaster Plus/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
green
2 sentences2012Nonetheless, we exercise our discretion to consider "the whole record and determine if the decision below has adequate factual support." Martinez, 2007 UT 42, ¶ 20 , 164 P.3d 384 . 2012Nonetheless, we exercise our discretion to consider "the whole record and determine if the decision below has adequate factual support." Martinez, 2007 UT 42, ¶ 20 , 164 P.3d 384 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Jau-Fei Chen v. Stewart
green
2 sentences2012For the most part, Peterson's brief presents only the evidence favorable to his position and fails to "remove [his] own prejudices and fully embrace [Frohardt's] position." Chen, 2004 UT 82, ¶ 78 , 100 P.3d 1177 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2012For the most part, Peterson's brief presents only the evidence favorable to his position and fails to "remove [his] own prejudices and fully embrace [Frohardt's] position." Chen, 2004 UT 82, ¶ 78 , 100 P.3d 1177 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Villalpando v. Reagan
green
2 sentences2010It is this fact that makes Villalpando v. Reagan, 211 Ariz. 305 , 121 P.3d 172 (Ariz.Ct.App.2005), a case cited extensively in Salt Lake City's brief, inapposite. 2010It is this fact that makes Villalpando v. Reagan, 211 Ariz. 305 , 121 P.3d 172 (Ariz.Ct.App.2005), a case cited extensively in Salt Lake City's brief, inapposite. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Lucero v. Kennard
green
2 sentences2008There, we stated the long held presumption that "where a defendant seeks to collaterally attack a court's judgment, we presume the regularity of the proceedings below." Lucero, 2005 UT 79, ¶ 24 , 125 P.3d 917 ; see also Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938) ("When collaterally attacked, the judgment of a court carries with it a presumption of regularity."). 2008There, we stated the long held presumption that "where a defendant seeks to collaterally attack a court's judgment, we presume the regularity of the proceedings below." Lucero, 2005 UT 79, ¶ 24 , 125 P.3d 917 ; see also Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938) ("When collaterally attacked, the judgment of a court carries with it a presumption of regularity."). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Hess v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2002Thus, the trial court properly found that Peterson's claim of mutual mistake fails Cf. Hess v. Ford Motor Co., 27 Cal4th 516, 526, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 220 , 41 P.3d 46 (2002) (holding that a release's broad language did not release a third party where the uncontroverted evidence established mutual mistake). 2002Thus, the trial court properly found that Peterson's claim of mutual mistake fails Cf. Hess v. Ford Motor Co., 27 Cal4th 516, 526, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 220 , 41 P.3d 46 (2002) (holding that a release's broad language did not release a third party where the uncontroverted evidence established mutual mistake). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.