model instruction (Utah) · Go Syfert
← Utah issues

model instruction in Utah

10 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2026 5 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Tingey v. Christensengreen
utah · 1999 · cited in 2 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., Tingey v. Christensen, 1999 UT 68, ¶ 15 , 987 P.2d 588 ("We hold that if the jury can find a reasonable basis for apportioning damages between a preexisting condition and a subsequent tort, it should do so; however, if the jury finds it impossible to apportion damages, it should find that the tortfeasor is liable for the entire amount of damages."). [[ 44 The parties tried the aggravation issue by implied consent, and the district court's instruction on damages relating to aggravation was a correct statement of the law.

2010See, e.g., Tingey v. Christensen, 1999 UT 68, ¶ 15 , 987 P.2d 588 ("We hold that if the jury can find a reasonable basis for apportioning damages between a preexisting condition and a subsequent tort, it should do so; however, if the jury finds it impossible to apportion damages, it should find that the tortfeasor is liable for the entire amount of damages."). [[ 44 The parties tried the aggravation issue by implied consent, and the district court's instruction on damages relating to aggravation was a correct statement of the law.

22
Jones v. Cyprus Plateau Mining Corp.green
utah · 1997 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014We note, however, that the model instructions, taken alone, are "merely advisory and do not necessarily represent correct statements of Utah law." Jones v. Cyprus Plateau Mining Corp., 944 P.2d 357, 359 (Utah 1997). 10 .

11
United States v. Melvin Telfairegreen
cadc · 1972 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009Cireuit proposed a model instruction touching on common problems with identifications. 469 F.2d 552, 558-59 (D.C.Cir.1972).

2009Circuit proposed a model instruction touching on common problems with identifications. 469 F.2d 552, 558-59 (D.C.Cir.1972).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
State v. James green
utahctapp · 2026
1 sentence

2026The trial court raised this issue with the attorneys prior to trial, and the attorneys worked 20221106-CA 21 2026 UT App 20 State v. James together to create a jury instruction—modeled after MUJI 2d CR431—that identified which acts went with which counts, and that instruction was ultimately given to the jury.

12026–2026
State v. Navarrete green
utahctapp · 2025
1 sentence

2025This model instruction—as well as Instruction 30, which was patterned after the model instruction—instructs jurors that they cannot convict unless they “unanimously agree that the prosecution has proven that [the defendant] committed [the crime] in at least one of those specific ways AND [they] unanimously agree on the specific way in which the defendant committed the offense.” Id.

12025–2025
State v. Mottaghian green
utahctapp · 2022
2 sentences

2022You may also apply the common, ordinary meaning of consent to all of the facts and circumstances of this case.” Id. ¶39 The consent instruction that the trial court gave to the jury in this case was very similar to the model instruction.

2022You may also apply the common, ordinary meaning of consent to all of the facts and circumstances of this case.” Id. ¶39 The consent instruction that the trial court gave to the jury in this case was very similar to the model instruction.

12022–2022
State v. Paule green
utahctapp · 2021
1 sentence

2021We urge the Advisory Committee on (continued…) 20200555-CA 20 2021 UT App 120 State v. Paule (en banc) (quotation simplified), quoted with approval in Alires, 2019 UT App 206, ¶ 22 .

12021–2021
State v. Alires green
utahctapp · 2019
1 sentence

2021We urge the Advisory Committee on (continued…) 20200555-CA 20 2021 UT App 120 State v. Paule (en banc) (quotation simplified), quoted with approval in Alires, 2019 UT App 206, ¶ 22 .

12021–2021
State v. Scott green
utah · 2020
1 sentence

2021Nonetheless, “if the court concludes that the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy, it follows that counsel did not perform deficiently.” Id. (cleaned up). ¶51 Here, we can easily conceive of a sound strategic reason for not requesting the model instruction on constructive possession.

12021–2021
Drew v. Lee green
utah · 2011
1 sentence

2011We highlight that the committee notes following the model instruction state that "[the drafting subcommittee was not unanimous in its approval of this instruction, so counsel and the trial court should review it with caution." See id.

12011–2011

Where else courts name it

MA 67 (1980–2026) AR 45 (1984–2020) CA 27 (1979–2025) CO 24 (1980–2026) IA 21 (1938–2025) VA 20 (1920–2025) MI 18 (1968–2022) OH 15 (1981–2025) WA 11 (1970–2015) DC 11 (1973–2025) MS 10 (1978–2016) UT 10 (2009–2026) MO 10 (1959–2023) NJ 10 (1979–2025) CT 8 (1978–2025) MD 8 (1993–2024) IN 7 (1973–2018) KY 6 (1989–2016) IL 6 (1978–2022) OK 6 (1942–2008) TX 5 (1979–2026) DE 5 (2010–2017) MN 5 (1982–2024) FL 5 (1963–1999) OR 4 (2010–2026) AZ 4 (1968–2021) NH 4 (1981–2012) SC 4 (1975–2015) NV 4 (1991–2020) NM 3 (2000–2022) GA 3 (1965–2010) NY 3 (1940–2008) NC 3 (1975–2005) ID 3 (2003–2013) WI 2 (1966–2020) HI 2 (2012–2019) RI 2 (1987–2016) MT 2 (1979–2015) SD 2 (1975–1995) PA 2 (1894–1999) WV 2 (1979–1982) NE 2 (1934–1934) AK 2 (2008–2023) ND 2 (2013–2013)

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