11 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1903–2026 7 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. Poppgreen2 sentences2026But moving to strike testimony and dealing with the situation through a curative instruction can “invoke the pink-elephant paradox: by being told not to think about a thing, jurors may actually be more likely to think about that thing.” State v. King, 2024 UT App 151, ¶ 33 , 559 P.3d 96 ; see also State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 50 , 453 P.3d 657 (“[A] curative instruction may actually serve to draw the jury’s attention toward the subject matter of the instruction and further emphasize the issue the instruction is attempting to cure.”). 2026But moving to strike testimony and dealing with the situation through a curative instruction can “invoke the pink-elephant paradox: by being told not to think about a thing, jurors may actually be more likely to think about that thing.” State v. King, 2024 UT App 151, ¶ 33 , 559 P.3d 96 ; see also State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 50 , 453 P.3d 657 (“[A] curative instruction may actually serve to draw the jury’s attention toward the subject matter of the instruction and further emphasize the issue the instruction is attempting to cure.”). | 7 | 7 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2026Thus, the only remedy Counsel could have sought—even if Counsel believed that Sydney’s trauma-related testimony was unhelpful—was to have the testimony stricken from the record and a curative instruction provided to the jury. ¶45 “[W]e have often held that decisions regarding whether to move to strike and seek a curative instruction are highly strategic ones that courts are loathe to second-guess.” State v. King, 2024 UT App 151, ¶ 33 , 559 P.3d 96 ; see also State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 50 , 453 P.3d 657 (“[A] curative instruction may actually serve to draw the jury’s attention toward th 2026But moving to strike testimony and dealing with the situation through a curative instruction can “invoke the pink-elephant paradox: by being told not to think about a thing, jurors may actually be more likely to think about that thing.” State v. King, 2024 UT App 151, ¶ 33 , 559 P.3d 96 ; see also State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 50 , 453 P.3d 657 (“[A] curative instruction may actually serve to draw the jury’s attention toward the subject matter of the instruction and further emphasize the issue the instruction is attempting to cure.”). | 1 | 4 |
Commercial Fixtures & Furnishings, Inc. v. Adamsgreen1 sentence1996The district court held that the claim “fails as a matter of law because (a) the subject matter of the claim was pre-empted by the existence of express contracts; (b) plaintiff conferred no benefit upon defendants; and (c) any enrichment of defendants was not unjust because it was the consideration bargained for under express contracts.” We agree. “‘Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another-’ ” Commercial Fixtures & Furnishings, Inc. v. Adams, 564 P.2d 773, 776 (Utah 1977) (quoting Baugh v. Darley, 112 Utah 1 , | 1 | 1 |
Baugh v. Darleygreen2 sentences1996The district court held that the claim “fails as a matter of law because (a) the subject matter of the claim was pre-empted by the existence of express contracts; (b) plaintiff conferred no benefit upon defendants; and (c) any enrichment of defendants was not unjust because it was the consideration bargained for under express contracts.” We agree. “‘Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another-’ ” Commercial Fixtures & Furnishings, Inc. v. Adams, 564 P.2d 773, 776 (Utah 1977) (quoting Baugh v. Darley, 112 Utah 1 , 1996The district court held that the claim “fails as a matter of law because (a) the subject matter of the claim was pre-empted by the existence of express contracts; (b) plaintiff conferred no benefit upon defendants; and (c) any enrichment of defendants was not unjust because it was the consideration bargained for under express contracts.” We agree. “‘Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another-’ ” Commercial Fixtures & Furnishings, Inc. v. Adams, 564 P.2d 773, 776 (Utah 1977) (quoting Baugh v. Darley, 112 Utah 1 , | 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. Garrido
green
2 sentences2025After all, a curative instruction often “invoke[s] the pink-elephant paradox: by being told not to think about a thing, jurors may actually be more likely to think about that thing.” Id.; see also State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 50 , 453 P.3d 657 (“[A] curative instruction may actually serve to draw the jury’s attention toward the subject matter of the instruction and further emphasize the issue the instruction is attempting to cure.”); State v. Garrido, 2013 UT App 245, ¶ 26 , 314 P.3d 1014 (“Choosing to forgo a limiting instruction can be a reasonable decision to avoid drawing attention to 2025After all, a curative instruction often “invoke[s] the pink-elephant paradox: by being told not to think about a thing, jurors may actually be more likely to think about that thing.” Id.; see also State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 50 , 453 P.3d 657 (“[A] curative instruction may actually serve to draw the jury’s attention toward the subject matter of the instruction and further emphasize the issue the instruction is attempting to cure.”); State v. Garrido, 2013 UT App 245, ¶ 26 , 314 P.3d 1014 (“Choosing to forgo a limiting instruction can be a reasonable decision to avoid drawing attention to | 2 | 2019–2025 |
State v. Cortez-Izarraraz
green
1 sentence2025After all, a curative instruction often “invoke[s] the pink-elephant paradox: by being told not to think about a thing, jurors may actually be more likely to think about that thing.” Id.; see also State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 50 , 453 P.3d 657 (“[A] curative instruction may actually serve to draw the jury’s attention toward the subject matter of the instruction and further emphasize the issue the instruction is attempting to cure.”); State v. Garrido, 2013 UT App 245, ¶ 26 , 314 P.3d 1014 (“Choosing to forgo a limiting instruction can be a reasonable decision to avoid drawing attention to | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Smith v. District Court of Second Judicial District in and for Morgan County
green
1 sentence1927Those sections of chapter 67, Laws Utah 1919, which relate to the subject-matter under inquiry, as is pointed out by Mr. Chief Justice Thurman in the case of Smith v. District Court, not yet officially reported, but found in 256 P. 539 , present a comprehensive plan for the determination of water rights in river systems and other sources in this state. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Flynn v. Boston Electric Light Co.
neutral
1 sentence1903The case of Flynn v. Light Co. (Mass.), 50 N. E. 937 , is distinguishable from the ease at bar in this: that in the case then before the court the subject-matter of inquiry, upon which expert testimony was sought to be introduced, related simply to the handling of wires from elevated positions, without the additional facts which appear in the case now before us, relative to- the intervening and approximate- situation of other wires heavily charged with electricity. | 1 | 1903–1903 |
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.