9 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
McKay v. Barnettgreen2 sentences2011The more liberal application of the impossibility defense discussed in Bifges is merely a statement by the supreme court of a more current formulation of the doctrine as opposed to the earliest expression on the availability of the doctrine found in McKay v. Barnett, 21 Utah 239 , 60 P. 1100, 1102 (1900). 2011The more liberal application of the impossibility defense discussed in Bifges is merely a statement by the supreme court of a more current formulation of the doctrine as opposed to the earliest expression on the availability of the doctrine found in McKay v. Barnett, 21 Utah 239 , 60 P. 1100, 1102 (1900). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mitchesongreen1 sentence2022See State v. Mitcheson, 560 P.2d 1120, 1122 (Utah 1977) (observing that a defendant has “the benefit of every defense” that may raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, and “this is true whether his defenses are consistent or not”). | 1 | 1 |
Christensen v. Board of Rev. of Indus. Com'ngreen1 sentence2012Comm'n, 579 P.2d 335, 336 (Utah 1978) (upholding a finding of unavailability due to a four-day elk hunting excursion and related hospital stay). ¶ 22 As interpreted by the Board, then, rule R994-403-112c(2)(a) imposes a disability not mentioned in the statute, impermissibly restricting the meaning of the availability requirement, and thus is not "in harmony" with the statute. | 1 | 1 |
Airport Hilton Ventures, Ltd. v. Utah State Tax Commissiongreen2 sentences2012See Airport Hilton Ventures, 1999 UT 26, 16 , 976 P.2d 1197 (per Zimmerman, J., with one judge concurring and one justice concurring in result) Accordingly, we cannot accept the Board's reading of the rule as reasonable. ¶ 23 On the other hand, Claimant's equally plausible reading of the rule is consistent with the governing statute. 2012See Airport Hilton Ventures, 1999 UT 26, 16 , 976 P.2d 1197 (per Zimmerman, J., with one judge concurring and one justice concurring in result) Accordingly, we cannot accept the Board's reading of the rule as reasonable. ¶ 23 On the other hand, Claimant's equally plausible reading of the rule is consistent with the governing statute. | 1 | 1 |
Bitzes v. Sunset Oaks, Inc.green1 sentence2011See Bitzes, 649 P.2d at 68 . | 1 | 1 |
Kristen D. v. Stephen D.green1 sentence2006Co. v. Hughes, 2004 UT App 391,¶ 14 , 101 P.3d 830 (listing elements óf equitable estoppel); see also Kristen D. v. Stephen D., 280 A.D.2d 717 , 719 N.Y.S.2d 771, 772-73 (2001) (“Courts have long recognized the availability of the doctrine of equitable estoppel as a defense in a paternity proceeding." (citations omitted)); Richard W. v. Roberta Y., 240 A.D.2d 812 , 658 N.Y.S.2d 506 (1997) (applying equitable estoppel principles to bar a paternity challenge). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Goordgreen1 sentence2006Co. v. Hughes, 2004 UT App 391,¶ 14 , 101 P.3d 830 (listing elements óf equitable estoppel); see also Kristen D. v. Stephen D., 280 A.D.2d 717 , 719 N.Y.S.2d 771, 772-73 (2001) (“Courts have long recognized the availability of the doctrine of equitable estoppel as a defense in a paternity proceeding." (citations omitted)); Richard W. v. Roberta Y., 240 A.D.2d 812 , 658 N.Y.S.2d 506 (1997) (applying equitable estoppel principles to bar a paternity challenge). | 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. Karr
green
1 sentence2015Instruction 37 adds, “In the context of defense of habitation, the facts and circumstances constituting reasonableness must be judged not from the actor’s subjective viewpoint, but rather from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary care and prudence in the same or similar circumstances.” 20130878-CA 6 2015 UT App 287 State v. Karr as a whole, not the presumption of reasonableness a defendant is entitled to once the unlawfulness of the entry is supported by the evidence. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Dorsey v. Department of Workforce Services, Workforce Appeals Board
green
2 sentences2013Additionally, the Board determined Kendell was ineligible for benefits because none of the countries he traveled to had a reciprocal agreement with the United States. 114 After briefing was completed, this court issued a decision in Dorsey v. Department of Workforce Services, 2012 UT App 364 , 294 P.3d 580 , rejecting the Board's interpretation of rule R994-408-112e as "im-posling] a disability not mentioned in the statute, impermissibly restricting the meaning of the availability requirement, and thus . not 'in harmony' with the statute." Id. 11 19-22. 2013Additionally, the Board determined Kendell was ineligible for benefits because none of the countries he traveled to had a reciprocal agreement with the United States. 114 After briefing was completed, this court issued a decision in Dorsey v. Department of Workforce Services, 2012 UT App 364 , 294 P.3d 580 , rejecting the Board's interpretation of rule R994-408-112e as "im-posling] a disability not mentioned in the statute, impermissibly restricting the meaning of the availability requirement, and thus . not 'in harmony' with the statute." Id. 11 19-22. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Dahl Investment Co. v. Hughes
neutral
2 sentences2006Co. v. Hughes, 2004 UT App 391,¶ 14 , 101 P.3d 830 (listing elements óf equitable estoppel); see also Kristen D. v. Stephen D., 280 A.D.2d 717 , 719 N.Y.S.2d 771, 772-73 (2001) (“Courts have long recognized the availability of the doctrine of equitable estoppel as a defense in a paternity proceeding." (citations omitted)); Richard W. v. Roberta Y., 240 A.D.2d 812 , 658 N.Y.S.2d 506 (1997) (applying equitable estoppel principles to bar a paternity challenge). 2006Co. v. Hughes, 2004 UT App 391,¶ 14 , 101 P.3d 830 (listing elements óf equitable estoppel); see also Kristen D. v. Stephen D., 280 A.D.2d 717 , 719 N.Y.S.2d 771, 772-73 (2001) (“Courts have long recognized the availability of the doctrine of equitable estoppel as a defense in a paternity proceeding." (citations omitted)); Richard W. v. Roberta Y., 240 A.D.2d 812 , 658 N.Y.S.2d 506 (1997) (applying equitable estoppel principles to bar a paternity challenge). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Richard W. v. Roberta Y.
green
2 sentences2006Co. v. Hughes, 2004 UT App 391,¶ 14 , 101 P.3d 830 (listing elements óf equitable estoppel); see also Kristen D. v. Stephen D., 280 A.D.2d 717 , 719 N.Y.S.2d 771, 772-73 (2001) (“Courts have long recognized the availability of the doctrine of equitable estoppel as a defense in a paternity proceeding." (citations omitted)); Richard W. v. Roberta Y., 240 A.D.2d 812 , 658 N.Y.S.2d 506 (1997) (applying equitable estoppel principles to bar a paternity challenge). 2006Co. v. Hughes, 2004 UT App 391,¶ 14 , 101 P.3d 830 (listing elements óf equitable estoppel); see also Kristen D. v. Stephen D., 280 A.D.2d 717 , 719 N.Y.S.2d 771, 772-73 (2001) (“Courts have long recognized the availability of the doctrine of equitable estoppel as a defense in a paternity proceeding." (citations omitted)); Richard W. v. Roberta Y., 240 A.D.2d 812 , 658 N.Y.S.2d 506 (1997) (applying equitable estoppel principles to bar a paternity challenge). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Thiokol Chemical Corporation v. Peterson
green
2 sentences1996Turning to the privilege tax, whose general purpose is to "close any gaps in the tax laws by imposing a tax on any property possessed or used in connection with a business for profit which [is] otherwise exempt from taxation," Thiokol, 393 P.2d at 393 , we note that the legislature eliminated the tax exemption on property leased by for-profit lessees from the government, unless the government-owned lessor is a religious, educational, or charitable organization that can claim the benefit of exemption 3(c). 1996Turning to the privilege tax, whose general purpose is to “close any gaps in the tax laws by imposing a tax on any property possessed or used in connection with a business for profit which [is] otherwise exempt from taxation,” Thiokol, 393 P.2d at 393 , we note that the legislature eliminated the tax exemption on property leased by for-profit lessees from the government, unless the government-owned lessor is a religious, educational, or charitable organization that can claim the benefit of exemption 3(c). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
In Re GAULT
green
2 sentences1988In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 47-48, 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 1454-55, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); First Fed. 1988In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 47-48, 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 1454-55, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); First Fed. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.