10 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Standiford v. Salt Lake City Corp.green2 sentences1996See generally DeBry v. Noble, 889 P.2d 428, 432-34 (Utah 1995); Standiford v. Salt Lake City, 605 P.2d 1230, 1235-36 (Utah 1980). 1996See generally DeBry v. Noble, 889 P.2d 428, 432-34 (Utah 1995); Standiford v. Salt Lake City, 605 P.2d 1230, 1235-36 (Utah 1980). | 1 | 1 |
DeBry v. Noblegreen2 sentences1996See generally DeBry v. Noble, 889 P.2d 428, 432-34 (Utah 1995); Standiford v. Salt Lake City, 605 P.2d 1230, 1235-36 (Utah 1980). 1996See generally DeBry v. Noble, 889 P.2d 428, 432-34 (Utah 1995); Standiford v. Salt Lake City, 605 P.2d 1230, 1235-36 (Utah 1980). | 1 | 1 |
Condemarin v. University Hospitalgreen2 sentences1995Justice Durham’s statement to that effect in Condema-rin, 775 P.2d at 348, was not, however, a holding of the Court. 5 While her opinion was the lead opinion in Condemarin , and is an arguable proposition, it was not a majority opinion. 6 Furthermore, her statement was made in the course of her analysis of the history and general structure of the Act, which was part of the argument in support of her conclusion. 1995Justice Durham's statement to that effect in Condemarin, 775 P.2d at 348 , was not, however, a holding of the Court. [5] While her opinion was the lead opinion in Condemarin , and is an arguable proposition, it was not a majority opinion. [6] Furthermore, her statement was made in the course of her analysis of the history and general structure of the Act, which was part of the argument in support of her conclusion. | 1 | 1 |
Bruno v. Plateau Mining Co.green1 sentence1989See Bruno, 747 P.2d at 1058 . | 1 | 1 |
Simpson v. Wolanskygreen2 sentences1989In Simpson v. Wolansky, 38 N.Y.2d 391 , 343 N.E.2d 274, 277 , 380 N.Y.S.2d 630, 634 (1975) (citations omitted), the court said: *1147 True, the hearing conducted by the administrative official acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity may be more or less informal and even technical legal rules of evidence and procedure may be disregarded, but included in the fundamental requirement of a fair trial, absent the waiver, is the entitlement of the party whose rights are being determined to be fully apprised of the proof to be considered, with the concomitant opportunity to cross-examine witne 1989In Simpson v. Wolansky, 38 N.Y.2d 391 , 343 N.E.2d 274, 277 , 380 N.Y.S.2d 630, 634 (1975) (citations omitted), the court said: *1147 True, the hearing conducted by the administrative official acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity may be more or less informal and even technical legal rules of evidence and procedure may be disregarded, but included in the fundamental requirement of a fair trial, absent the waiver, is the entitlement of the party whose rights are being determined to be fully apprised of the proof to be considered, with the concomitant opportunity to cross-examine witne | 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. Kropf
green
2 sentences2026As something of an upfront guide for the reader, we note that our decision in State v. Kropf, 2015 UT App 223 , 360 P.3d 1 , interpreted a 2008 version of the Stalking Statute, and in the course of our analysis, we also discussed certain amendments that had been made to that statute in 2012. 2026As something of an upfront guide for the reader, we note that our decision in State v. Kropf, 2015 UT App 223 , 360 P.3d 1 , interpreted a 2008 version of the Stalking Statute, and in the course of our analysis, we also discussed certain amendments that had been made to that statute in 2012. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Thalab
green
1 sentence2026As will be discussed later in this opinion, the legislature made more changes to that statute that took effect in early 2017 (and, thus, before Thalab’s sentencing), as well as yet more changes to the statute in 2020 that (continued…) 20240351-CA 6 2026 UT App 43 State v. Thalab A. State v. Kropf ¶16 Kropf pled guilty in 2010 to stalking, and the district court did not issue a permanent criminal stalking injunction at Kropf’s sentencing. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Elder v. Elder
neutral
1 sentence2024In the course of that hearing, Matt never argued that he was being deprived of the opportunity to conduct discovery of his own. 20210902-CA 3 2024 UT App 68 Elder v. Elder ¶9 A few weeks later, the court held an evidentiary hearing on the question of “potential damages connected with the failure to deliver the title” to the townhouse “free and clear of liens.” At that hearing, both parties presented extensive arguments about their positions. ¶10 After almost a year of additional litigation, the court issued a written ruling on Brittany’s motion for an order to show cause. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Ramsey
green
1 sentence2020Id. ¶57 In the course of our analysis, we characterized Ramsey as standing for the proposition that “an out-of-court statement which is denied at trial by the declarant is insufficient by itself to sustain a conviction.” Id. (quoting Ramsey, 782 P.2d at 484 ) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Stricklan
green
2 sentences2020Id. ¶57 In the course of our analysis, we characterized Ramsey as standing for the proposition that “an out-of-court statement which is denied at trial by the declarant is insufficient by itself to sustain a conviction.” Id. (quoting Ramsey, 782 P.2d at 484 ) (emphasis added). 2020Id. ¶57 In the course of our analysis, we characterized Ramsey as standing for the proposition that “an out-of-court statement which is denied at trial by the declarant is insufficient by itself to sustain a conviction.” Id. (quoting Ramsey, 782 P.2d at 484 ) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club v. Utah Air Quality Board
green
2 sentences2018The APA provides that the presiding officer of an appeal board "shall regulate the course of the hearing to ... afford all the parties reasonable opportunity to present their positions," id. § 63G-4-206(1)(a), and "shall afford to all parties the opportunity to present evidence, argue, respond, conduct cross-examination, and submit rebuttal evidence," id. § 63G-4-206(1)(d). ¶21 Here, the Appeal Board gave each party one hour to present evidence and examine their own witnesses, but the time used to cross-examine witnesses was not deducted from each party's allotted time. ¶22 The parties cite Si 2018The APA provides that the presiding officer of an appeal board "shall regulate the course of the hearing to ... afford all the parties reasonable opportunity to present their positions," id. § 63G-4-206(1)(a), and "shall afford to all parties the opportunity to present evidence, argue, respond, conduct cross-examination, and submit rebuttal evidence," id. § 63G-4-206(1)(d). ¶21 Here, the Appeal Board gave each party one hour to present evidence and examine their own witnesses, but the time used to cross-examine witnesses was not deducted from each party's allotted time. ¶22 The parties cite Si | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Sierra Club v. Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Control Bd.
green
1 sentence2018The APA provides that the presiding officer of an appeal board "shall regulate the course of the hearing to ... afford all the parties reasonable opportunity to present their positions," id. § 63G-4-206(1)(a), and "shall afford to all parties the opportunity to present evidence, argue, respond, conduct cross-examination, and submit rebuttal evidence," id. § 63G-4-206(1)(d). ¶21 Here, the Appeal Board gave each party one hour to present evidence and examine their own witnesses, but the time used to cross-examine witnesses was not deducted from each party's allotted time. ¶22 The parties cite Si | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Clopten
green
1 sentence2013In the course of its analysis, the court recognized that testimony on the factors that generally affect the accuracy of eyewitness identification is "sufficiently reliable" to be admissible under rule 702 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, id. 11 35, 38, provided that the witness is "qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education," 10 Utah R. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Alexander Hamilton Institute v. Calkins
green
2 sentences1951Law 170, 170 A. 54 , where the court held that because the contract provided that should any part of the fee become due and remain unpaid for sixty days or more, the entire balance may, at the option of the Institute, be declared immediately due and payable, the damages were stipulated in the contract of the parties, and hence the school could recover the total contract price less payments made. 1951Law 170, 170 A. 54 , where the court held that because the contract provided that should any part of the fee become due and remain unpaid for sixty days or more, the entire balance may, at the option of the Institute, be declared immediately due and payable, the damages were stipulated in the contract of the parties, and hence the school could recover the total contract price less payments made. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.