75 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2026 23 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. Rossgreen2 sentences2022A court’s error is “not plain where there is no settled appellate law to guide [it].” See State v. Ross, 951 P.2d 236, 239 (Utah Ct. App. 1997); see also State v. Dean, 2004 UT 63, ¶ 16 , 95 P.3d 276 (noting that, to establish obvious error, a party “must show that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made”). 2022A court’s error is “not plain where there is no settled appellate law to guide [it].” See State v. Ross, 951 P.2d 236, 239 (Utah Ct. App. 1997); see also State v. Dean, 2004 UT 63, ¶ 16 , 95 P.3d 276 (noting that, to establish obvious error, a party “must show that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made”). | 14 | 14 |
State v. Deangreen2 sentences2025No one disputes that the court’s failure to comply with rule 22(a) was error and “that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” State v. Dean, 2004 UT 63, ¶ 16 , 95 P.3d 276 . 2025No one disputes that the court’s failure to comply with rule 22(a) was error and “that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” State v. Dean, 2004 UT 63, ¶ 16 , 95 P.3d 276 . | 8 | 35 |
State v. Alzagagreen2 sentences2016An error is obvious when "the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made." State v. Dean, 2004 UT 63, ¶ 16 , 95 P.3d 276 ; see also State v. Alzaga, 2015 UT App 133, ¶ 23 , 352 P.3d 107 . 2016An error is obvious when "the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made." State v. Dean, 2004 UT 63, ¶ 16 , 95 P.3d 276 ; see also State v. Alzaga, 2015 UT App 133, ¶ 23 , 352 P.3d 107 . | 4 | 4 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2024“For an error to be obvious to the trial court, the party arguing for [plain error] must show that the law governing the error was clear or plainly settled at the time the alleged error was made.” State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 21 , 416 P.3d 443 (quotation simplified). ¶53 Notwithstanding the problems outlined in the foregoing paragraphs, Mother’s argument that the error was obvious is limited to asserting that article III(2)(f) of the ICPC is clear that “[c]ourts must comply with the ICPC when transferring custody to an individual or agency that is out of state.” But Article III(2)(f) is not 2024“For an error to be obvious to the trial court, the party arguing for [plain error] must show that the law governing the error was clear or plainly settled at the time the alleged error was made.” State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 21 , 416 P.3d 443 (quotation simplified). ¶53 Notwithstanding the problems outlined in the foregoing paragraphs, Mother’s argument that the error was obvious is limited to asserting that article III(2)(f) of the ICPC is clear that “[c]ourts must comply with the ICPC when transferring custody to an individual or agency that is out of state.” But Article III(2)(f) is not | 3 | 12 |
State v. Romangreen2 sentences2025“To establish that the error should have been obvious to the trial court, the appellant must show that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” State v. Roman, 2015 UT App 183, ¶ 9 , 356 P.3d 185 (quotation simplified). 2025“To establish that the error should have been obvious to the trial court, the appellant must show that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” State v. Roman, 2015 UT App 183, ¶ 9 , 356 P.3d 185 (quotation simplified). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Eldredgegreen2 sentences2016“To establish that an error should have been obvious to the trial court, [an appellant] must show that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” State v. Dean, 2004 UT 63, ¶ 16 , 95 P.3d 276 (citing State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29, 35-36 (Utah 1989)). 2015To establish that an error should have been obvious to the trial court, an appellant "must show that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made." State v. Dean, 2004 UT 63, ¶ 16 , 95 P.3d 276 (citing State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29, 35-36 (Utah 1989)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Maestasgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 37 , 229 P.3d 892 (“An error is obvious only if the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” (cleaned up)). ¶19 For similar reasons, Parents cannot demonstrate that counsel performed deficiently by failing to request that the court treat the siblings as a unit. 2025See State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 37 , 229 P.3d 892 (“An error is obvious only if the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” (cleaned up)). ¶19 For similar reasons, Parents cannot demonstrate that counsel performed deficiently by failing to request that the court treat the siblings as a unit. | 2 | 5 |
State v. Labrumgreen2 sentences2016J.C. argues that the error should have been obvious to the juvenile court because "the plain language of the rules of evidence show that [the school principal's] testimony was filled with statements not made by the declarant while testifying at trial [and were] offered for their truth and not admitted as inconsistent statements subject to cross-examination." But even if the State failed to properly. lay foundation to admit the school principal's hearsay testimony about the three students' statements, it does not automatically follow that the error should have been obvious to the juvenile court 2016J.C. argues that the error should have been obvious to the juvenile court because "the plain language of the rules of evidence show that [the school principal's] testimony was filled with statements not made by the declarant while testifying at trial [and were] offered for their truth and not admitted as inconsistent statements subject to cross-examination." But even if the State failed to properly. lay foundation to admit the school principal's hearsay testimony about the three students' statements, it does not automatically follow that the error should have been obvious to the juvenile court | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lowgreen2 sentences2012"An error is obvious when the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made." State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 41 , 192 P.3d 867 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2012"An error is obvious when the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made." State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 41 , 192 P.3d 867 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 6 |
Thomas v. Mattenagreen2 sentences2023“To establish that the error should have been obvious to the trial court, the appellant must show that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” Thomas v. Mattena, 2017 UT App 81, ¶ 13 , 397 P.3d 856 (quotation simplified). 2023“To establish that the error should have been obvious to the trial court, the appellant must show that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” Thomas v. Mattena, 2017 UT App 81, ¶ 13 , 397 P.3d 856 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 4 |
Cedar City v. Bragetgreen1 sentence2025Given the absence of controlling case law mandating the kind of searching colloquy that Braget asserts was required, “we cannot agree that the trial court committed any error, let alone an obvious one.” Id.; see also State v. Roman, 2015 UT App 183, ¶ 9 , 356 P.3d 185 (“To establish that [an] error should have been obvious to the trial court, the appellant must show that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” (cleaned up)). 20230535-CA 11 2025 UT App 39 Cedar City v. Braget ¶28 In support of a contrary conclusion, Braget points to an Administrative Order | 1 | 1 |
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruengreen1 sentence2025Consequently, “an error is not obvious if there is no settled appellate law to guide the trial court.” Id. (quotation simplified). ¶33 In his brief, Brown relies on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, wherein the United States Supreme Court held that a New York statute requiring individuals to prove “proper cause” to “have and carry” a concealed firearm before obtaining a license was unconstitutional. 597 U.S. 1, 12, 39 (2022) (quotation simplified). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Harris, 2024 UT App 191, ¶ 36 , 562 P.3d 1215 (“An error is obvious only if the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made. 2025See State v. Harris, 2024 UT App 191, ¶ 36 , 562 P.3d 1215 (“An error is obvious only if the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Piercegreen1 sentence2024“Under a plain error standard of review, an error is obvious only if the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” Pierce, 2022 UT 22, ¶ 23 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Marquinagreen2 sentences2022“For an error to be obvious to the trial court, the law governing the error must be clear or plainly settled.” Id. (quotation simplified); see also State v. Marquina, 2020 UT 66, ¶ 30 , 478 P.3d 37 (“An error is obvious if from a review of the record, the appellate court is led to the conclusion that given the 3. 2022“For an error to be obvious to the trial court, the law governing the error must be clear or plainly settled.” Id. (quotation simplified); see also State v. Marquina, 2020 UT 66, ¶ 30 , 478 P.3d 37 (“An error is obvious if from a review of the record, the appellate court is led to the conclusion that given the 3. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Van Huizengreen2 sentences2022“For an error to be obvious to the trial court, the law governing the error must be clear or plainly settled.” Id. (quotation simplified); see also State v. Marquina, 2020 UT 66, ¶ 30 , 478 P.3d 37 (“An error is obvious if from a review of the record, the appellate court is led to the conclusion that given the 3. 2022But again, to demonstrate plain error, Grover must demonstrate that Judge Ludlow committed an obvious error, and an error can only be obvious if “the law governing the error” is “clear or plainly settled.” Van Huizen, 2019 UT 01, ¶ 30 (quotation simplified). ¶50 Grover has not pointed to any law that clearly or plainly establishes that rule 2.11(A) requires recusal if a sentencing judge served as the county attorney when a defendant was prosecuted for an entirely different offense. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Samoragreen1 sentence2021See id. (quotation simplified); see also State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 21 , 416 P.3d 443 . | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Van Huizengreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lovegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Perkinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hogge v. Hoggegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Murraygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Jonesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Strickland v. Washingtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Nunezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Elnickigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hoppegreen | 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. Davis
green
2 sentences2018"To establish that the error should have been obvious to the trial court, the appellant must show that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made." State v. Davis , 2013 UT App 228 , ¶ 32, 311 P.3d 538 (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). 2018"To establish that the error should have been obvious to the trial court, the appellant must show that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made." State v. Davis , 2013 UT App 228 , ¶ 32, 311 P.3d 538 (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). | 5 | 2017–2018 |
State v. Calata
green
2 sentences2025While “attorneys are not [categorically] excused from failure to raise an argument not supported by existing legal precedent,” a party alleging ineffective assistance must demonstrate that the attorney’s failure “was objectively unreasonable—i.e., a battle that competent counsel would have fought.” State v. Calata, 2022 UT App 127, ¶ 20 , 521 P.3d 920 (cleaned up). 2025While “attorneys are not [categorically] excused from failure to raise an argument not supported by existing legal precedent,” a party alleging ineffective assistance must demonstrate that the attorney’s failure “was objectively unreasonable—i.e., a battle that competent counsel would have fought.” State v. Calata, 2022 UT App 127, ¶ 20 , 521 P.3d 920 (cleaned up). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Veracity Networks LLC v. MCG S. LLC
green
2 sentences2021In any event, plain error occurs only when the error “should have been obvious to the district court,” and to establish obviousness, the party “must show that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” Veracity Networks LLC v. MCG S. LLC, 2019 UT App 53, ¶ 27 , 440 P.3d 906 (quotation simplified). 2021In any event, plain error occurs only when the error “should have been obvious to the district court,” and to establish obviousness, the party “must show that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” Veracity Networks LLC v. MCG S. LLC, 2019 UT App 53, ¶ 27 , 440 P.3d 906 (quotation simplified). | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Ronald Bernard Bennett v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2018"Thus, an error is not obvious if there is no settled appellate law to guide the trial court." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶80 Defendant quotes Bennett v. Angelone , 92 F.3d 1336 (4th Cir. 1996) : "[f]ederal and state courts have universally condemned ... religiously charged arguments as confusing, unnecessary, and inflammatory." Id. at 1346 . 2018"Thus, an error is not obvious if there is no settled appellate law to guide the trial court." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶80 Defendant quotes Bennett v. Angelone , 92 F.3d 1336 (4th Cir. 1996) : "[f]ederal and state courts have universally condemned ... religiously charged arguments as confusing, unnecessary, and inflammatory." Id. at 1346 . | 2 | 2017–2018 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2026Consequently, an error is not obvious if there is no settled appellate law to guide the trial court.” State v. Brown, 2025 UT App 31, ¶ 32 , 566 P.3d 737 (quotation simplified). ¶61 Alternatively, to show that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, Youren must show (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. 2026Consequently, an error is not obvious if there is no settled appellate law to guide the trial court.” State v. Brown, 2025 UT App 31, ¶ 32 , 566 P.3d 737 (quotation simplified). ¶61 Alternatively, to show that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, Youren must show (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Finlayson
green
2 sentences2024Here, the law at the time of Nicole’s trial was not entirely clear, and it would not have led the trial court to believe it needed to make separate findings in support of its verdict. ¶36 In State v. Finlayson, 2014 UT App 282 , 362 P.3d 926 , the defendant similarly opted for a bench trial. 2024Here, the law at the time of Nicole’s trial was not entirely clear, and it would not have led the trial court to believe it needed to make separate findings in support of its verdict. ¶36 In State v. Finlayson, 2014 UT App 282 , 362 P.3d 926 , the defendant similarly opted for a bench trial. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Cesspooch
green
1 sentence2024As the State points out, no Utah case has specifically 20210552-CA 4 2024 UT App 15 State v. Cesspooch held that it is error for a court to inform a jury of the classification for an offense. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Garcia
green
2 sentences2023And to show obviousness, Carrell must establish that “the law governing the error was clear or plainly settled at the time the alleged error was made.” State v. Garcia, 2022 UT App 77, ¶ 47 , 526 P.3d 1238 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 525 P.3d 1260 (Utah 2022). ¶28 So viewed, Carrell has not established that the postconviction court committed any constitutional error, much less that it committed obvious constitutional error, when it denied his requests for the appointment of counsel. 2023And to show obviousness, Carrell must establish that “the law governing the error was clear or plainly settled at the time the alleged error was made.” State v. Garcia, 2022 UT App 77, ¶ 47 , 526 P.3d 1238 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 525 P.3d 1260 (Utah 2022). ¶28 So viewed, Carrell has not established that the postconviction court committed any constitutional error, much less that it committed obvious constitutional error, when it denied his requests for the appointment of counsel. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Cegers
green
2 sentences2022For example, in State v. Cegers, 2019 UT App 54 , 440 P.3d 924 , we held that the trial court plainly erred when it permitted a victim’s school counselor to testify that she did not believe the victim fabricated allegations of sexual abuse in a scholarship application. 2022For example, in State v. Cegers, 2019 UT App 54 , 440 P.3d 924 , we held that the trial court plainly erred when it permitted a victim’s school counselor to testify that she did not believe the victim fabricated allegations of sexual abuse in a scholarship application. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Jamieson
green
1 sentence2021We conclude that Jamieson has made the necessary showing. ¶27 “For an error to be obvious to the [district] court, the party arguing for the exception to preservation must show that 20150863-CA 12 2021 UT App 3 State v. Jamieson the law governing the error was clear or plainly settled at the time the alleged error was made.” State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 21 , 416 P.3d 443 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re J.C.
green
1 sentence2021“An error is obvious when the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” In re J.C., 2016 UT App 10 , ¶ 20, 366 P.3d 867 (cleaned up). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
J.C. v. State
green
1 sentence2021“An error is obvious when the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” In re J.C., 2016 UT App 10 , ¶ 20, 366 P.3d 867 (cleaned up). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Wilkerson
green
1 sentence2020And “for an error to be obvious to the [district] court, the party . . . must show that the law governing the error was clear, or plainly settled, at the time the alleged error was made.” State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 20 , 416 P.3d 443 (quotation simplified). ¶26 Wilkerson makes no attempt to analyze these standards, and argues only in passing that the Pay-to-Stay Statute is “plainly unconstitutional for violating due process.” Under these 20190633-CA 14 2020 UT App 160 State v. Wilkerson circumstances, Wilkerson has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that the district court plainly | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Ringstad green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Jamieson green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In re Koller green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Salt Lake City v. Josephson green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Vu green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Robinson neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Zavala v. Zavala green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Berkshires, L.L.C. v. Sykes green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Reece green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Snyder v. Snyder neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Benson v. Utah Labor Comm'n green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Ferguson v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Evans neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Dunn green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Commonwealth v. Garcia green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Butler v. Sports Haven International green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Beck green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Carpenter v. Riverton City green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.