discussion factors in Utah

10 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2021 1 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Verdegreen utah · 1989 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 122 (Utah 1989). ¶ 22 We turn first to a discussion of whether an error occurred.	1	1
State v. Hamiltongreen utah · 1992 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006To establish that the trial court erred, the defendant must demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion, acting “ ‘beyond the limits of rea-sonability.’ ” Olsen, 860 P.2d at 334 (quoting State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 239-40 (Utah 1992)).	1	1
Farrington v. Granite State Fire Ins. Co.green utah · 1951 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005See id. ¶ 16 Consistent with the lessons of Far-rington, other states have likewise precluded rescission if an insurer has acted, subsequent to a breach, in such a way as to recognize the insurance contract as in force.	1	1
State v. Rhodesgreen utahctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 1 sentence 2003Although each of the presentence reports contained a recommendation that Defendant be incarcerated, these recommendations were made only after a discussion of factors such as Defendant's age at the time he committed the offenses, his supportive family, his limited criminal history, the exact extent of his role in each of the offenses, and his low IQ. 126 Based on the extreme nature of Defendant's crimes, and the recommendation in each of Defendant's presentence reports that he be incarcerated, we cannot say that the trial court's decision not to grant Defendant probation was "inherently unfair	1	1
Woodhouse Ex Rel. Woodhouse v. Johnsongreen utah · 1968 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971 2 sentences 1971For a discussion of this instruction, see my dissent in the case of Woodhouse v. Johnson, 20 Utah 2d 210, 216 , 436 P.2d 442, 446 (1968). 1971For a discussion of this instruction, see my dissent in the case of Woodhouse v. Johnson, 20 Utah 2d 210, 216 , 436 P.2d 442, 446 (1968).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (22)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Nunez green utahctapp · 2021 1 sentence 2021Multiple considerations could have persuaded defense counsel, and indeed Nunez himself (as he was part of the discussion with defense counsel that led to the decision), that replacing Juror 35 would be an appropriate trial strategy and that pursuing a mistrial could be detrimental to his cause. 20190317-CA 37 2021 UT App 86 State v. Nunez CONCLUSION ¶74 The court did not exceed its discretion in admitting Kiara’s CJC interview, and the court did not plainly err, nor did defense counsel provide ineffective assistance, regarding its admission.	1	2021–2021
State v. Bradshaw green utah · 2006 1 sentence 2012Co., 2006 UT 87, ¶ 25 , 140 P.3d 1210 (internal quotation marks omitted). 125 We first reject the notion that the discussion of defense cost apportionment in Sharon Steel constituted mere "guidance" without precedential value.	1	2012–2012
Sharon Steel Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. green utah · 1997 1 sentence 2012In Sharon Steel, we "deem{ed] it prudent to offer guidance to the trial court," and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to fashion the precise allocation formula because it, in its capacity as fact finder, was best suited procedurally to allocate costs to the parties based upon our time-on-the-risk standard. 931 P.2d 127 at 140-42 .	1	2012–2012
Benjamin v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co. green utah · 2006 1 sentence 2012Co., 2006 UT 87, ¶ 25 , 140 P.3d 1210 (internal quotation marks omitted). 125 We first reject the notion that the discussion of defense cost apportionment in Sharon Steel constituted mere "guidance" without precedential value.	1	2012–2012
West v. Thomson Newspapers green utah · 1994 1 sentence 2009Mr. Jacob claims that Mr. Bezrzant's Election Notice made claims of dishonesty and negative campaigning which have degraded him in society and exposed him to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule. 127 As we stated in the discussion of the standard of review for defamation claims, understanding the context in which the Election Notice was published is critical to evaluating its defamatory potential "A court simply cannot determine whether a statement is capable of sustaining a defamatory meaning by viewing individual words in isolation; rather, it must carefully examine the context in which the	1	2009–2009
State v. Olsen green utah · 1993 1 sentence 2006To establish that the trial court erred, the defendant must demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion, acting “ ‘beyond the limits of rea-sonability.’ ” Olsen, 860 P.2d at 334 (quoting State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 239-40 (Utah 1992)).	1	2006–2006
State v. Ramirez green utah · 1991 1 sentence 1994Relying on our decision in State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 (Utah 1991), Vincent argued that although the court of appeals should review the trial court’s factual findings for clear error, the legal conclusion founded upon those facts — the conclusion as to his indigen-cy or lack thereof — was a legal conclusion to be reviewed for correctness.	1	1994–1994
Olson v. Dahl green minn · 1906 2 sentences 1965For a discussion of this rule, see Olson v. Dahl, 99 Minn. 433 , 109 N.W. 1001 , 8 L.R.A.,N.S., 444 (1906). 4 . 68-3-2, U.C.A.1953: “The rule of the common law that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed has no application to the statutes of this state. * * * ” 5 . 1965For a discussion of this rule, see Olson v. Dahl, 99 Minn. 433 , 109 N.W. 1001 , 8 L.R.A.,N.S., 444 (1906). 4 . 68-3-2, U.C.A.1953: “The rule of the common law that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed has no application to the statutes of this state. * * * ” 5 .	1	1965–1965
Sova v. Ries green wis · 1937 2 sentences 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of	1	1958–1958
Lepasiotes v. Dinsdale green utah · 1952 2 sentences 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of	1	1958–1958
In RE LAVELLE'S ESTATE. IMMERCHAL v. First SEC. Bank green utah · 1952 2 sentences 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of	1	1958–1958
Maley v. Mundy neutral texapp · 1907 2 sentences 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of	1	1958–1958
Pinion v. Pinion green utah · 1937 2 sentences 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of	1	1958–1958
Aiken Et Ux. v. Less Taylor Motor Co. green utah · 1946 2 sentences 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of	1	1958–1958
Porter v. Porter green utah · 1946 1 sentence 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of	1	1958–1958
Hendricks v. Hendricks green utah · 1936 2 sentences 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of	1	1958–1958
Cooke v. Cooke neutral utah · 1926 2 sentences 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of	1	1958–1958
Dahlberg v. Dahlberg green utah · 1930 2 sentences 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of	1	1958–1958
Sandall v. Sandall green · 1920 2 sentences 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of	1	1958–1958
Stuber v. Stuber green utah · 1952 2 sentences 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of	1	1958–1958
Steiger v. Steiger green utah · 1956 2 sentences 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of	1	1958–1958
Wilson v. Wilson green utah · 1956 2 sentences 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of 1958Hendricks v. Hendricks, 91 Utah 553 , 63 P.2d 277 ; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 77 Utah 157 , 292 P. 214 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79 , 296 P.2d 977 ; Pinion v. Pinion, 92 Utah 255 , 67 P.2d 265 and cases therein cited; Porter v. Porter, 109 Utah 444 , 116 P.2d 516 . [6] See Steiger v. Steiger, 4 Utah 2d 273 , 293 P.2d 418 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 67 Utah 371 , 248 P. 83 . [7] As to propriety of considering facts thus admitted, see Stuber v. Stuber, 121 Utah 632 , 244 P.2d 650, 652 ; Sova v. Ries, 226 Wis. 53 , 276 N.W. 111 ; Maley v. Mundy, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 630 , 107 S.W. 905 . [8] For a discussion of	1	1958–1958

Where else courts name it

CA 226 (1907–2026) LA 168 (1941–2025) TX 156 (1905–2021) PA 112 (1911–2026) NY 81 (1891–2026) TN 77 (1904–2026) IL 59 (1872–2024) CT 55 (1857–2021) MA 55 (1874–2024) MO 47 (1905–2020) FL 43 (1914–2019) AL 40 (1894–2024) MD 38 (1939–2025) WV 36 (1935–2020) IN 36 (1867–2019) WI 32 (1891–2025) KS 28 (1904–2024) GA 27 (1895–2018) MI 26 (1889–2022) WA 23 (1910–2024) OK 21 (1908–2009) NC 21 (1895–2022) OH 21 (1906–2026) MT 21 (1919–2022) KY 20 (1917–2022) DE 20 (1972–2025) RI 19 (1968–2022) ME 16 (1947–2024) SC 16 (1929–2022) AZ 16 (1916–2020) OR 15 (1922–2025) MS 15 (1956–2020) NE 15 (1884–2021) VA 14 (1927–2015) AR 14 (1941–2026) NJ 14 (1891–2019) WY 14 (1948–1999) NM 12 (1950–2025) AK 11 (1964–2001) UT 10 (1958–2021) IA 9 (1962–2025) DC 9 (1956–2016) MN 8 (1900–2006) CO 8 (1952–2008) NV 7 (1991–2009) VT 7 (1967–2026) NH 5 (1986–2021) ID 5 (1968–2012) HI 4 (1982–2017) ND 4 (1950–1991) SD 3 (1979–2010) VI 2 (1988–2010)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check