10 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Farr v. Swigartgreen2 sentences2008See Farr v. Swigart, 13 Utah 150 , 44 P. 711, 713 (1896) (“In actions of trespass, where the injury has been wanton and malicious, or gross and outrageous, courts permit juries to add [to] the measured compensation of the plaintiff, which he would have been entitled to recover had the injury been inflicted without design or intention, something further, by way of *926 punishment or example-” (emphasis added)). 2008See Farr v. Swigart, 13 Utah 150 , 44 P. 711, 713 (1896) (“In actions of trespass, where the injury has been wanton and malicious, or gross and outrageous, courts permit juries to add [to] the measured compensation of the plaintiff, which he would have been entitled to recover had the injury been inflicted without design or intention, something further, by way of *926 punishment or example-” (emphasis added)). | 1 | 1 |
First Interstate Bank of Utah v. Keslergreen1 sentence1989See In re Estate of Kesler, 702 P.2d at 96-97 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
D.B. v. State
green
2 sentences2017Id. ¶36 Recently, in Adoption of K.A.S., we held that a rare procedural anomaly existed “[w]hen a party [was] appointed counsel who refuse[d] to make an argument for the right to counsel when that right [was] challenged.” 2016 UT 55 , ¶ 21. 2017Id. ¶36 Recently, in Adoption of K.A.S., we held that a rare procedural anomaly existed “[w]hen a party [was] appointed counsel who refuse[d] to make an argument for the right to counsel when that right [was] challenged.” 2016 UT 55 , ¶ 21. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
In re K.A.S.
green
2 sentences2017Id. ¶36 Recently, in Adoption of K.A.S., we held that a rare procedural anomaly existed “[w]hen a party [was] appointed counsel who refuse[d] to make an argument for the right to counsel when that right [was] challenged.” 2016 UT 55 , ¶ 21. 2017Id. ¶36 Recently, in Adoption of K.A.S., we held that a rare procedural anomaly existed “[w]hen a party [was] appointed counsel who refuse[d] to make an argument for the right to counsel when that right [was] challenged.” 2016 UT 55 , ¶ 21. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
B.G.T.S. v. Balls Brothers Farm
green
1 sentence2024The district court ruled that its grant of summary judgment defeating BGTS’s claim of boundary by acquiescence “necessarily resolve[d]” the trespass claim because BGTS cannot sustain a trespass claim where it “is not the lawful owner of the property at issue.” Because we ultimately affirm the district court’s order denying summary judgment to BGTS and granting summary judgment to Balls Brothers, and because BGTS does not challenge the court’s order on the trespass claim, we affirm the dismissal of the trespass claim as well. 20220523-CA 4 2024 UT App 37 B.G.T.S. v. Balls Brothers Farm counterc | 1 | 2024–2024 |
3 Dimensional Contractors v. Utah Associated
green
1 sentence2024UAMPS did not file a cross-appeal to challenge that decision, and it does not—to our knowledge—claim any right to 20210935-CA 34 2024 UT App 35 Utah Associated Mun. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. James
green
1 sentence2021And that means that it can no longer be said that the question of who opens a car door in a traffic stop is an ―incidental factor‖ that ―elevate[s] form over substance.‖ James, 2000 UT 80, ¶ 13 . ¶24 We thus repudiate the sweeping statement of our holding in James along these lines. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Speights
neutral
1 sentence2021Id. at 404–05. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
L.E.S. v. C.D.M.
green
1 sentence2017Id. ¶36 Recently, in Adoption of K.A.S. , we held that a rare procedural anomaly existed "[w]hen a party [was] appointed counsel who refuse[d] to make an argument for the right to counsel when that right [was] challenged." 2016 UT 55 , ¶ 21, 390 P.3d 278 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Breiggar Properties, L.C. v. H.E. Davis & Sons, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Davis & Sons, Inc., 2002 UT 53 , 52 P.3d 1133 , a trespass case, governs the question of when the Earls’ cause of action arose. 2016Davis & Sons, Inc., 2002 UT 53 , 52 P.3d 1133 , a trespass case, governs the question of when the Earls’ cause of action arose. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.