Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Irwingreen2 sentences2015See Kell v. State, 2012 UT 25, 36 , 285 P.3d 1133 . " '[Ejxceptional circumstances' is a concept that is used sparingly, properly reserved for truly exceptional situations," such as " 'rare procedural anomalies"" State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 11 (Utah Ct.App.1996); see also State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2004 UT 29, ¶ 23 , 94 P.3d 186 . 116 The exceptional-cireumstances doctrine does not aid Isom for three reasons. 2014See generally State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 9-11 (Utah Ct. App.1996) (collecting cases applying the exceptional cireumstances exception and cases rejecting the applicability of the exception). 19 For reasons explained infra, we determine that the error in the homicide by assault jury instruction presents the very type of "astonishingly erroneous but undetected ruling" that our jurisprudence and the State, in its supplemental briefing, agree an appellate court should not "refus[e}, out of principle, to reverse." State v. Robison, 2006 UT 65, ¶ 23 , 147 P.3d 448 . | 3 | 3 |
State v. Nelson-Waggonergreen2 sentences2015See Kell v. State, 2012 UT 25, 36 , 285 P.3d 1133 . " '[Ejxceptional circumstances' is a concept that is used sparingly, properly reserved for truly exceptional situations," such as " 'rare procedural anomalies"" State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 11 (Utah Ct.App.1996); see also State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2004 UT 29, ¶ 23 , 94 P.3d 186 . 116 The exceptional-cireumstances doctrine does not aid Isom for three reasons. 2015See Kell v. State, 2012 UT 25, 36 , 285 P.3d 1133 . " '[Ejxceptional circumstances' is a concept that is used sparingly, properly reserved for truly exceptional situations," such as " 'rare procedural anomalies"" State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 11 (Utah Ct.App.1996); see also State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2004 UT 29, ¶ 23 , 94 P.3d 186 . 116 The exceptional-cireumstances doctrine does not aid Isom for three reasons. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Dunngreen2 sentences2015The exceptional-cireumstances doctrine "is a concept that is used sparingly, and properly reserved for truly exceptional situations, for cases ... involving rare procedural anomalies." State v. Koglov, 2012 UT App 114 , ¶ 35, 276 P.3d 1207 (omission in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 , 1209 n. 3 (Utah 1993). 2013The exceptional cireumstances exception "applies primarily to rare procedural anomalies." Dunn, 850 P.2d at 1209 n. 3; see also State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 8 (Utah Ct.App.1996) (noting that the exception allows an appellate court to determine "that even though an issue was not raised below and even though the plain error doctrine does not apply, unique procedural cireumstances nonetheless permit consideration of the merits of the issue on appeal"). 17 Fourth, Pullman contends that the trial court erred in admitting two pieces of evidence: (1) his prior conviction for lewdness and (2) testimony | 1 | 3 |
Kell v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Kell v. State, 2012 UT 25, 36 , 285 P.3d 1133 . " '[Ejxceptional circumstances' is a concept that is used sparingly, properly reserved for truly exceptional situations," such as " 'rare procedural anomalies"" State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 11 (Utah Ct.App.1996); see also State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2004 UT 29, ¶ 23 , 94 P.3d 186 . 116 The exceptional-cireumstances doctrine does not aid Isom for three reasons. 2015See Kell v. State, 2012 UT 25, 36 , 285 P.3d 1133 . " '[Ejxceptional circumstances' is a concept that is used sparingly, properly reserved for truly exceptional situations," such as " 'rare procedural anomalies"" State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 11 (Utah Ct.App.1996); see also State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2004 UT 29, ¶ 23 , 94 P.3d 186 . 116 The exceptional-cireumstances doctrine does not aid Isom for three reasons. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Weavergreen2 sentences2014See State v. Weaver, 2005 UT 49, ¶ 18 , 122 P.3d 566 (recognizing exceptional cireumstances as an exception to the preservation rule). 2014See State v. Weaver, 2005 UT 49, ¶ 18 , 122 P.3d 566 (recognizing exceptional cireumstances as an exception to the preservation rule). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lopezgreen1 sentence2014The most prominent cases where Utah courts have found exceptional cireumstances and reviewed unpreserved issues are "where a change in law or the settled interpretation of law color{s] the failure to have raised an issue at trial." See Provo City v. Ivie, 2008 UT App 287, ¶ 6 , 191 P.3d 841 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127 , 1134 n. 2 (Utah 1994); State v. Haston, 846 P.2d 1276 (Utah 1993) (per curiam). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robisongreen2 sentences2014See generally State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 9-11 (Utah Ct. App.1996) (collecting cases applying the exceptional cireumstances exception and cases rejecting the applicability of the exception). 19 For reasons explained infra, we determine that the error in the homicide by assault jury instruction presents the very type of "astonishingly erroneous but undetected ruling" that our jurisprudence and the State, in its supplemental briefing, agree an appellate court should not "refus[e}, out of principle, to reverse." State v. Robison, 2006 UT 65, ¶ 23 , 147 P.3d 448 . 2014See generally State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 9-11 (Utah Ct. App.1996) (collecting cases applying the exceptional cireumstances exception and cases rejecting the applicability of the exception). 19 For reasons explained infra, we determine that the error in the homicide by assault jury instruction presents the very type of "astonishingly erroneous but undetected ruling" that our jurisprudence and the State, in its supplemental briefing, agree an appellate court should not "refus[e}, out of principle, to reverse." State v. Robison, 2006 UT 65, ¶ 23 , 147 P.3d 448 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Eldredgegreen2 sentences2014For example, the Utah Supreme Court has recognized that exceptions to the preservation rule reflect the need to " 'balance ... procedural regularity with the demands of fairness," noting that "'[alt bottom, the plain error rule's purpose is to permit us to avoid injustice."' Id. 113 (quoting, respectively, State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116 , 122 n. 12 (Utah 1989), and State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 , 35 n. 8 (Utah 1989)). 133 As a consequence, while I concur in Judge Davis's opinion, I write separately to articulate further why I believe reaching the merits is appropriate despite any invited error 2014TI 34 The supreme court has stated that the exceptional cireumstances exception to the preservation rule "applies primarily to rare procedural anomalies," id. 112 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), and the court has cautioned that the exception is "applied ... sparingly," being reserved for "the most unusual cireumstances where our failure to consider an issue that was not properly preserved for appeal would have resulted in manifest injustice," State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2004 UT 29, ¶ 23 , 94 P.3d 186 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen1 sentence2012See id.; see also State v. Carter, 776 P.2d 886, 888 (Utah 1989) ("[An appellate court] need not analyze and address in writing each and every argument, issue, or claim raised and properly before [the court] on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lopezgreen1 sentence2000See Monson v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017, 1022 (Utah 1996); State v. Lopez, 886 P.2d 1105, 1113 (Utah 1994). 112 We have stated that "the exceptional cireumstances exception is ill-defined and applies primarily to rare procedural anomalies." State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 , 1209 n. 3 (Utah 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Monson v. Carvergreen1 sentence2000See Monson v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017, 1022 (Utah 1996); State v. Lopez, 886 P.2d 1105, 1113 (Utah 1994). 112 We have stated that "the exceptional cireumstances exception is ill-defined and applies primarily to rare procedural anomalies." State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 , 1209 n. 3 (Utah 1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Provo City v. Ivie
green
2 sentences2014The most prominent cases where Utah courts have found exceptional cireumstances and reviewed unpreserved issues are "where a change in law or the settled interpretation of law color{s] the failure to have raised an issue at trial." See Provo City v. Ivie, 2008 UT App 287, ¶ 6 , 191 P.3d 841 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127 , 1134 n. 2 (Utah 1994); State v. Haston, 846 P.2d 1276 (Utah 1993) (per curiam). 2014The most prominent cases where Utah courts have found exceptional cireumstances and reviewed unpreserved issues are "where a change in law or the settled interpretation of law color{s] the failure to have raised an issue at trial." See Provo City v. Ivie, 2008 UT App 287, ¶ 6 , 191 P.3d 841 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127 , 1134 n. 2 (Utah 1994); State v. Haston, 846 P.2d 1276 (Utah 1993) (per curiam). | 2 | 2013–2014 |
Ottens v. McNeil
green
2 sentences2016T6 "The application of the statute of limitations is a question of law, which we review for correctness." Ottens v. McNeil, 2010 UT App 237, ¶ 20 , 239 P.3d 308 . 2016T6 "The application of the statute of limitations is a question of law, which we review for correctness." Ottens v. McNeil, 2010 UT App 237, ¶ 20 , 239 P.3d 308 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2015T18 Here, Isom makes a single reference to the exceptional-cireumstances doctrine in his reply brief, stating that we "should address [the due process] issue because it is aln] exceptional cireumstance in every regard." But his argument lacks even "bald citation to authority" and, in any event, contains no "development of that authority [or] reasoned analysis based on that authority." Thomas, 961 P.2d at 305 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Kozlov
green
2 sentences2015The exceptional-cireumstances doctrine "is a concept that is used sparingly, and properly reserved for truly exceptional situations, for cases ... involving rare procedural anomalies." State v. Koglov, 2012 UT App 114 , ¶ 35, 276 P.3d 1207 (omission in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 , 1209 n. 3 (Utah 1993). 2015The exceptional-cireumstances doctrine "is a concept that is used sparingly, and properly reserved for truly exceptional situations, for cases ... involving rare procedural anomalies." State v. Koglov, 2012 UT App 114 , ¶ 35, 276 P.3d 1207 (omission in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 , 1209 n. 3 (Utah 1993). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Verde
green
1 sentence2014For example, the Utah Supreme Court has recognized that exceptions to the preservation rule reflect the need to " 'balance ... procedural regularity with the demands of fairness," noting that "'[alt bottom, the plain error rule's purpose is to permit us to avoid injustice."' Id. 113 (quoting, respectively, State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116 , 122 n. 12 (Utah 1989), and State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 , 35 n. 8 (Utah 1989)). 133 As a consequence, while I concur in Judge Davis's opinion, I write separately to articulate further why I believe reaching the merits is appropriate despite any invited error | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Haston
green
1 sentence2014The most prominent cases where Utah courts have found exceptional cireumstances and reviewed unpreserved issues are "where a change in law or the settled interpretation of law color{s] the failure to have raised an issue at trial." See Provo City v. Ivie, 2008 UT App 287, ¶ 6 , 191 P.3d 841 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127 , 1134 n. 2 (Utah 1994); State v. Haston, 846 P.2d 1276 (Utah 1993) (per curiam). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Holgate
green
2 sentences2014State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 12 , 10 P.3d 346 . 2014For example, the Utah Supreme Court has recognized that exceptions to the preservation rule reflect the need to " 'balance ... procedural regularity with the demands of fairness," noting that "'[alt bottom, the plain error rule's purpose is to permit us to avoid injustice."' Id. 113 (quoting, respectively, State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116 , 122 n. 12 (Utah 1989), and State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 , 35 n. 8 (Utah 1989)). 133 As a consequence, while I concur in Judge Davis's opinion, I write separately to articulate further why I believe reaching the merits is appropriate despite any invited error | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Alfatlawi
green
2 sentences2012"Furthermore, the exceptional cireumstances doctrine is 'reservied] for the most unusual cireum-stances where our failure to consider an issue that was not properly preserved for appeal would have resulted in manifest injustice.'" Alfatlawi, 2006 UT App 511, ¶ 44 , 153 P.3d 804 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). 136 First, the challenges Defendant has raised to the three statements do not fit the narrowly defined exceptional cireunmstances exception, and we will not consider this exception further. 2012"Furthermore, the exceptional cireumstances doctrine is 'reservied] for the most unusual cireum-stances where our failure to consider an issue that was not properly preserved for appeal would have resulted in manifest injustice.'" Alfatlawi, 2006 UT App 511, ¶ 44 , 153 P.3d 804 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). 136 First, the challenges Defendant has raised to the three statements do not fit the narrowly defined exceptional cireunmstances exception, and we will not consider this exception further. | 1 | 2012–2012 |