10 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Beard v. White, Green and Addison Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2025The Beard court analyzed whether the evidence supported the conclusion that “a proper person” was served under the predecessor to rule 4(d)(1)(E). 7 336 P.2d at 125–26. 2025See id. __________________________________________________________ 7 The predecessor to rule 4(d)(1)(E) cited in Beard provided that service could be made upon a corporation by delivering a copy of a complaint and summons to “an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.” Beard, 336 P.2d at 125 n.1 (quoting UTAH R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Easthopegreen1 sentence2016Id. at 530, 531 ; see also Utah Code Ann. § 77-35-16 (Allen Smith Co. 1982). | 1 | 1 |
Price v. Armourgreen1 sentence2015See Price v. Armour, 949 P.2d 1251, 1255 (Utah 1997) (explaining that the near-identical language of a predecessor rule under the Utah Code of Judicial Administration "clearly required that the [district] court grant [a party's] request for a hearing unless either of the two exceptions applied"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bensongreen2 sentences1997The Legislature may amend the Rules of Procedure and Evidence adopted by the Supreme Court upon a vote of two-thirds of all members of both houses of the Legislature.”); Utah Code Ann. § 78-2-4 (same); see also State v. Benson, 712 P.2d 256, 258 (Utah 1985) (stating that “the privileges provided for in section 78-24-8(1) ... have been modified by [the predecessor rule to rule 502]”). 1997The Legislature may amend the Rules of Procedure and Evidence adopted by the Supreme Court upon a vote of two-thirds of all members of both houses of the Legislature."); Utah Code Ann. § 78-2-4 (same); see also State v. Benson, 712 P.2d 256, 258 (Utah 1985) (stating that "the privileges provided for in section 78-24-8(1)... have been modified by [the predecessor rule to rule 502]"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lesleygreen1 sentence1991See State v. Lesley, 672 P.2d 79, 82-83 (Utah 1983) (interpreting rule 4, the predecessor to rule 103) (Howe, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Malmrosegreen2 sentences1989See State v. Malmrose, 649 P.2d 56, 58 (Utah 1982) (decided under former Utah Rule of Evidence 4, a predecessor to rule 103). 1989See State v. Malmrose, 649 P.2d 56, 58 (Utah 1982) (decided under former Utah Rule of Evidence 4, a predecessor to rule 103). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Brown
green
2 sentences1990In Brown v. Brown, 744 P.2d 333 (Utah Ct.App.1987), this court found that stipulations must be in writing or submitted in open court to be enforceable, id. at 335 , relying, in part, on the predecessor to rule 4-504(8). 1990In Brown v. Brown, 744 P.2d 333 (Utah Ct.App.1987), this court found that stipulations must be in writing or submitted in open court to be enforceable, id. at 335 , relying, in part, on the predecessor to rule 4-504(8). | 2 | 1989–1990 |
State v. Rammel
green
1 sentence2024In Rammel, applying the predecessor to rule 702(b), our supreme court concluded that a detective’s expert testimony in that case was improperly admitted. 721 P.2d at 500–01. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Prettyman
green
1 sentence2024The detective had testified that “[b]ased on his experience interviewing several hundred criminal suspects, . . . no criminal suspect ever admitted ‘right off the bat’ to committing a crime” and that “because most suspects lie when initially questioned by police, it 20210868-CA 14 2024 UT App 20 State v. Prettyman would not have been ‘unusual’ for [the defendant] to lie during the first police interrogation.” Id. at 500. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Prowswood, Inc. v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co.
green
1 sentence2004Id. (quoting Utah R. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Zions First National Bank v. Barbara Jensen Interiors, Inc.
green
1 sentence1990In Zions First Natl Bank v. Barbara Jensen Interiors, Inc., 781 P.2d 478 (Utah Ct.App.1989), another panel of this court found that certain settlement agreements need not be in writing to be enforceable. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.