9 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2018 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. Jamesgreen2 sentences2004See State v. Cayer, 814 P.2d 604, 608-09 (Utah Ct.App.1991); see also James, 767 P.2d at 552 . ¶ 15 The first factor relates to the standing of both J.J. and Stubbs in the community. 1991Id. | 1 | 2 |
Johnson v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2018Instead, "[t]he policy considerations in favor of realistic limits on negligence liability ha[d] given rise ... to the impact rule, the zone-of-danger rule, and the Dillon rule." Id. 2018Id. at 780-84 . ¶ 49 The majority in Johnson recognized a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress in Utah and adopted the zone-of-danger rule found in section 313, but acknowledged that, "[a]t some future date, [the court] may determine that there is merit in some of the other approaches." Id. at 785 (Zimmerman, J., concurring in part) (representing a majority on the issues addressed). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kallingreen1 sentence2017Id. ¶ 41 (quoting State v. Kallin, 877 P.2d 138, 143 (Utah 1994)). ¶ 67 The holding in Tiedemann was expressly tied to some degree to rule 16. | 1 | 1 |
Hoffer v. Szumskigreen1 sentence2017Id. ¶ 41 (quoting State v. Kallin, 877 P.2d 128, 143 (Utah 1994)). ¶ 67 The holding in Tiedemann was expressly tied to some degree to rule 16. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. IHC Hospitals, Inc.green1 sentence2014See Wilson, 2012 UT 48, ¶ 54 , 289 P.3d 369 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greenwoodgreen1 sentence2014See Wilson, 2012 UT 48, ¶ 54 , 289 P.3d 369 . | 1 | 1 |
Steffensen v. Smith's Management Corp.green1 sentence2014Corp., 820 P.2d 482, 489 (Utah Ct.App.1991), aff'd, 862 P2d 1342 (Utah 1993); see also Kelson v. Salt Lake Cnty. 784 P.2d 1152, 1157 (Utah 1989) (indicating that in analyzing whether an error is prejudicial, "we must consider the impact of that error in the context of the whole proceeding"). 125 In some instances, jury instructions may cure any error resulting from the improper admission of certain evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Kelson v. Salt Lake Countygreen1 sentence2014Corp., 820 P.2d 482, 489 (Utah Ct.App.1991), aff'd, 862 P2d 1342 (Utah 1993); see also Kelson v. Salt Lake Cnty. 784 P.2d 1152, 1157 (Utah 1989) (indicating that in analyzing whether an error is prejudicial, "we must consider the impact of that error in the context of the whole proceeding"). 125 In some instances, jury instructions may cure any error resulting from the improper admission of certain evidence. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cayergreen1 sentence2004See State v. Cayer, 814 P.2d 604, 608-09 (Utah Ct.App.1991); see also James, 767 P.2d at 552 . ¶ 15 The first factor relates to the standing of both J.J. and Stubbs in the community. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pierregreen1 sentence1989State v. Pierre, 572 P.2d 1338, 1350 (Utah 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 882 , 99 S.Ct. 219 , 58 L.Ed.2d 194 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Estate of Hockgreen2 sentences1989State v. Speer, 750 P.2d 186, 189 (Utah 1988); see Matter of Estate of Hock, 655 P.2d 1111, 1117 (Utah 1982); Stagmeyer v. Leatham Brothers, Inc., 20 Utah 2d 421, 426 , 439 P.2d 279, 282 (1968). 1989State v. Speer, 750 P.2d 186, 189 (Utah 1988); see Matter of Estate of Hock, 655 P.2d 1111, 1117 (Utah 1982); Stagmeyer v. Leatham Brothers, Inc., 20 Utah 2d 421, 426 , 439 P.2d 279, 282 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Stagmeyer v. Leatham Brothers, Inc.green2 sentences1989State v. Speer, 750 P.2d 186, 189 (Utah 1988); see Matter of Estate of Hock, 655 P.2d 1111, 1117 (Utah 1982); Stagmeyer v. Leatham Brothers, Inc., 20 Utah 2d 421, 426 , 439 P.2d 279, 282 (1968). 1989State v. Speer, 750 P.2d 186, 189 (Utah 1988); see Matter of Estate of Hock, 655 P.2d 1111, 1117 (Utah 1982); Stagmeyer v. Leatham Brothers, Inc., 20 Utah 2d 421, 426 , 439 P.2d 279, 282 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Speergreen2 sentences1989State v. Speer, 750 P.2d 186, 189 (Utah 1988); see Matter of Estate of Hock, 655 P.2d 1111, 1117 (Utah 1982); Stagmeyer v. Leatham Brothers, Inc., 20 Utah 2d 421, 426 , 439 P.2d 279, 282 (1968). 1989State v. Speer, 750 P.2d 186, 189 (Utah 1988); see Matter of Estate of Hock, 655 P.2d 1111, 1117 (Utah 1982); Stagmeyer v. Leatham Brothers, Inc., 20 Utah 2d 421, 426 , 439 P.2d 279, 282 (1968). | 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. Knight
green
2 sentences2017Id. ¶ 41 (quoting State v. Kallin, 877 P.2d 138, 143 (Utah 1994)). ¶ 67 The holding in Tiedemann was expressly tied to some degree to rule 16. 2017Id. ¶ 41 (quoting State v. Kallin, 877 P.2d 128, 143 (Utah 1994)). ¶ 67 The holding in Tiedemann was expressly tied to some degree to rule 16. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Brady
green
1 sentence2016In Brady, we considered a due process challenge where the defendant "admitted to violating his probation by failing to pay anything toward the restitution, but described his efforts to find a job and his overwhelming. financial obligations in an effort to mitigate the impact of his violation." Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Steffensen v. Smith's Management Corp.
green
1 sentence2014Corp., 820 P.2d 482, 489 (Utah Ct.App.1991), aff'd, 862 P2d 1342 (Utah 1993); see also Kelson v. Salt Lake Cnty. 784 P.2d 1152, 1157 (Utah 1989) (indicating that in analyzing whether an error is prejudicial, "we must consider the impact of that error in the context of the whole proceeding"). 125 In some instances, jury instructions may cure any error resulting from the improper admission of certain evidence. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2011Because "[slome errors will have had a pervasive effect on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence, altering the entire eviden-tiary picture, and some will have had an isolated, trivial effect," when determining the impact of an error, we "consider the totality of the evidence before the ... jury." Id. at 695-96 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . 139 Here, the case comes down to whether there is a reasonable doubt that the victim died before 6:00 a.m. 2011Because "[slome errors will have had a pervasive effect on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence, altering the entire eviden-tiary picture, and some will have had an isolated, trivial effect," when determining the impact of an error, we "consider the totality of the evidence before the ... jury." Id. at 695-96 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . 139 Here, the case comes down to whether there is a reasonable doubt that the victim died before 6:00 a.m. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Hulsey v. Arkansas
green
1 sentence1989State v. Pierre, 572 P.2d 1338, 1350 (Utah 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 882 , 99 S.Ct. 219 , 58 L.Ed.2d 194 (1978). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.