9 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2020We agree. ¶19 Under the standard the United States Supreme Court established in Strickland v. Washington, a court may disturb a criminal conviction based on an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel only where the criminal defendant shows (1) “that counsel’s performance was deficient,” and (2) that “the deficient performance prejudiced the [criminal defendant’s] defense.”11 The first prong of this analysis requires the defendant to show “that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.”12 And the sec | 1 | 1 |
State v. Verdegreen1 sentence2015See id. | 1 | 1 |
Yazd v. Woodside Homes Corp.green2 sentences2007See Yazd, 2006 UT 47 at ¶ 10 , 143 P.3d 283 . 2007See Yazd, 2006 UT 47 at ¶ 10 , 143 P.3d 283 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nortongreen2 sentences1988Lafferty’s eighth claim is that the trial court violated his rights to due process and to trial by an impartial jury under the fourteenth and sixth amendments by excluding potential jurors who were reluctant to impose the death penalty and by failing to exclude prospective jurors who strongly favored imposing the death penalty. 11 In State v. Norton, 675 P.2d at 589, this Court explained that the test of a jury’s impartiality is whether each juror can follow the court’s instructions. 1988Lafferty's eighth claim is that the trial court violated his rights to due process and to trial by an impartial jury under the fourteenth and sixth amendments by excluding potential jurors who were reluctant to impose the death penalty and by failing to exclude prospective jurors who strongly favored imposing the death penalty. [11] In State v. Norton, 675 P.2d at 589, this Court explained that the test of a jury's impartiality is whether each juror can follow the court's instructions. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Christensen v. Labor Commission
green
2 sentences2025It avoids the uncertainties and unfair discrepancies that can plague a judicial effort to determine a plaintiff’s unusual subjective feelings.” Id. at 68–69. ¶65 And finally, the Court explained that the standard is general. 2025The Court rejected some courts’ efforts to identify specific prohibited acts and voiced the standard in otherwise general terms because “[c]ontext matters.” Id. at 69 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Grant
green
1 sentence2021It concluded that Grant had “failed to prove that the victims’ losses were caused in whole or in part by the victims’ conduct.” Instead, it assigned complete and total fault to Grant, finding that Grant’s “conduct of planning and carrying out the aggravated robbery and eventual shooting [of] the victims was not broken or interrupted by any conduct by the victims” and that, in contrast, “[Marcus’s] conduct, pulling out his gun, and eventually shooting [Grant] in the leg was in self-defense and defense of others.” The court explained that credible evidence showed Grant “planned to commit an aggr | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Grunwald
green
2 sentences2020First, the court explained that the instruction erroneously “permits a conviction based on a reckless mental state.”6 Second, it explained that the instruction erroneously permits conviction based on intentional aid that was not directly connected to the murder.7 And third, it explained that the instruction erroneously permits conviction based on knowledge that Mr. Garcia’s actions were reasonably certain to cause the aggravated murder, rather than on knowledge that Ms. Grunwald’s own actions were reasonably certain to do so.8 _____________________________________________________________ 5 Sta 2020First, the court explained that the instruction erroneously “permits a conviction based on a reckless mental state.”6 Second, it explained that the instruction erroneously permits conviction based on intentional aid that was not directly connected to the murder.7 And third, it explained that the instruction erroneously permits conviction based on knowledge that Mr. Garcia’s actions were reasonably certain to cause the aggravated murder, rather than on knowledge that Ms. Grunwald’s own actions were reasonably certain to do so.8 _____________________________________________________________ 5 Sta | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Martinez-Castellanos
green
2 sentences2020First, the court explained that the instruction erroneously “permits a conviction based on a reckless mental state.”6 Second, it explained that the instruction erroneously permits conviction based on intentional aid that was not directly connected to the murder.7 And third, it explained that the instruction erroneously permits conviction based on knowledge that Mr. Garcia’s actions were reasonably certain to cause the aggravated murder, rather than on knowledge that Ms. Grunwald’s own actions were reasonably certain to do so.8 _____________________________________________________________ 5 Sta 2020First, the court explained that the instruction erroneously “permits a conviction based on a reckless mental state.”6 Second, it explained that the instruction erroneously permits conviction based on intentional aid that was not directly connected to the murder.7 And third, it explained that the instruction erroneously permits conviction based on knowledge that Mr. Garcia’s actions were reasonably certain to cause the aggravated murder, rather than on knowledge that Ms. Grunwald’s own actions were reasonably certain to do so.8 _____________________________________________________________ 5 Sta | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Grunwald
neutral
1 sentence2020First, the court explained that the instruction erroneously “permits a conviction based on a reckless mental state.”6 Second, it explained that the instruction erroneously permits conviction based on intentional aid that was not directly connected to the murder.7 And third, it explained that the instruction erroneously permits conviction based on knowledge that Mr. Garcia’s actions were reasonably certain to cause the aggravated murder, rather than on knowledge that Ms. Grunwald’s own actions were reasonably certain to do so.8 _____________________________________________________________ 5 Sta | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Robinson v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2016Robinson, 2010 UT App 96, ¶ 10 , 232 P.3d 1081 . 2016Robinson, 2010 UT App 96, ¶ 10 , 232 P.3d 1081 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Ulizzi
green
1 sentence2016We indicated that the “ ‘sanction of exclusion is automatic and mandatory unless the sanctioned party can show that the violation ... was either justified or harmless.’ ” Id. (emphasis. added) (quoting Dahl v. Harrison, 2011 UT App 389, ¶ 22 , 266 P.3d 139 ). 8 We further noted that *1141 the district court sanctioned the appellant, Sleepy Holdings, for failure to disclose and stated that “[t]he district court’s ruling repeatedly cites rule 26; it never mentions rule 16.” Id. ¶ 22. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Dahl v. Harrison
green
1 sentence2016We indicated that the “ ‘sanction of exclusion is automatic and mandatory unless the sanctioned party can show that the violation ... was either justified or harmless.’ ” Id. (emphasis. added) (quoting Dahl v. Harrison, 2011 UT App 389, ¶ 22 , 266 P.3d 139 ). 8 We further noted that *1141 the district court sanctioned the appellant, Sleepy Holdings, for failure to disclose and stated that “[t]he district court’s ruling repeatedly cites rule 26; it never mentions rule 16.” Id. ¶ 22. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Boyd v. United States
red
2 sentences2011The court explained that this rule had been upheld in "the English, and nearly all of the American cases." Id. at 598 , 24 S.Ct. 372 . ' 51 In the face of this extensive historical record, Walker's briefs in this case cite one historical data point purportedly to the contrary: the United States Supreme Court's decision in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886). 2011The court explained that this rule had been upheld in "the English, and nearly all of the American cases." Id. at 598 , 24 S.Ct. 372 . ' 51 In the face of this extensive historical record, Walker's briefs in this case cite one historical data point purportedly to the contrary: the United States Supreme Court's decision in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Adams v. New York
green
2 sentences2011The court explained that this rule had been upheld in "the English, and nearly all of the American cases." Id. at 598 , 24 S.Ct. 372 . ' 51 In the face of this extensive historical record, Walker's briefs in this case cite one historical data point purportedly to the contrary: the United States Supreme Court's decision in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886). 2011The court explained that this rule had been upheld in "the English, and nearly all of the American cases." Id. at 598 , 24 S.Ct. 372 . ' 51 In the face of this extensive historical record, Walker's briefs in this case cite one historical data point purportedly to the contrary: the United States Supreme Court's decision in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.