8 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jose Macias Lozanogreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., United States v. Shulick, 18 F.4th 91 , 102 (3d Cir. 2021) (referring to prejudice as “the most important factor in the Barker analysis”); United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 781 (4th Cir. 2020) (“Prejudice, while not essential to the establishment of a violation of the right, is a prime issue and a critical factor.” (quotation simplified)); Symdon, 689 F.3d at 752 (“Prejudice is the most important of the four Barker factors.”); State v. Leslie, 708 P.2d 719, 725 (Ariz. 1985) (en banc) (holding that of “these four factors, the length of the delay is the least conclusive and the p | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2022Ct. App. 1994) (“Actual prejudice is the final and most important factor . . . .”); State v. Brackett, 377 P.3d 1082, 1090 (Idaho Ct. App. 2016) (“The nature and extent of prejudice is the most important of the Barker factors.”); State v. Rodriguez, 494 P.3d 155, 163 (Kan. | 1 | 1 |
Shaw v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., United States v. Shulick, 18 F.4th 91 , 102 (3d Cir. 2021) (referring to prejudice as “the most important factor in the Barker analysis”); United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 781 (4th Cir. 2020) (“Prejudice, while not essential to the establishment of a violation of the right, is a prime issue and a critical factor.” (quotation simplified)); Symdon, 689 F.3d at 752 (“Prejudice is the most important of the four Barker factors.”); State v. Leslie, 708 P.2d 719, 725 (Ariz. 1985) (en banc) (holding that of “these four factors, the length of the delay is the least conclusive and the p | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lesliegreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., United States v. Shulick, 18 F.4th 91 , 102 (3d Cir. 2021) (referring to prejudice as “the most important factor in the Barker analysis”); United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 781 (4th Cir. 2020) (“Prejudice, while not essential to the establishment of a violation of the right, is a prime issue and a critical factor.” (quotation simplified)); Symdon, 689 F.3d at 752 (“Prejudice is the most important of the four Barker factors.”); State v. Leslie, 708 P.2d 719, 725 (Ariz. 1985) (en banc) (holding that of “these four factors, the length of the delay is the least conclusive and the p | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lloydgreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., United States v. Shulick, 18 F.4th 91 , 102 (3d Cir. 2021) (referring to prejudice as “the most important factor in the Barker analysis”); United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 781 (4th Cir. 2020) (“Prejudice, while not essential to the establishment of a violation of the right, is a prime issue and a critical factor.” (quotation simplified)); Symdon, 689 F.3d at 752 (“Prejudice is the most important of the four Barker factors.”); State v. Leslie, 708 P.2d 719, 725 (Ariz. 1985) (en banc) (holding that of “these four factors, the length of the delay is the least conclusive and the p | 1 | 1 |
Albert West v. Denise Symdongreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., United States v. Shulick, 18 F.4th 91 , 102 (3d Cir. 2021) (referring to prejudice as “the most important factor in the Barker analysis”); United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 781 (4th Cir. 2020) (“Prejudice, while not essential to the establishment of a violation of the right, is a prime issue and a critical factor.” (quotation simplified)); Symdon, 689 F.3d at 752 (“Prejudice is the most important of the four Barker factors.”); State v. Leslie, 708 P.2d 719, 725 (Ariz. 1985) (en banc) (holding that of “these four factors, the length of the delay is the least conclusive and the p | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robert Benjamin Brackettgreen1 sentence2022Ct. App. 1994) (“Actual prejudice is the final and most important factor . . . .”); State v. Brackett, 377 P.3d 1082, 1090 (Idaho Ct. App. 2016) (“The nature and extent of prejudice is the most important of the Barker factors.”); State v. Rodriguez, 494 P.3d 155, 163 (Kan. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hintzegreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., United States v. Shulick, 18 F.4th 91 , 102 (3d Cir. 2021) (referring to prejudice as “the most important factor in the Barker analysis”); United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 781 (4th Cir. 2020) (“Prejudice, while not essential to the establishment of a violation of the right, is a prime issue and a critical factor.” (quotation simplified)); Symdon, 689 F.3d at 752 (“Prejudice is the most important of the four Barker factors.”); State v. Leslie, 708 P.2d 719, 725 (Ariz. 1985) (en banc) (holding that of “these four factors, the length of the delay is the least conclusive and the p | 1 | 1 |
Moody v. Moodygreen1 sentence2009Moreover, in the present case, as is quite frequently the situation, "the evidence supporting changed cireumstances is ... the same evidence that is used to establish the best interests of the child," Moody v. Moody, 715 P.2d 507, 511 (Utah 1985) (Daniels, Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Walton v. Waltongreen1 sentence2009Cases decided subsequent to the establishment of this framework have recognized that trial courts have discretion to "decif{de]l to merge the best interests of the child into the changed circumstances test ... [,] particularly ... when 'the initial custody award is premised on a temporary condition, a choice between marginal custody arrangements, ... or similar exceptional criteria'" Walton v. Walton, 814 P.2d 619, 621 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (quoting Maughan, 770 P.2d at 160 ). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Complaint Against Smithgreen2 sentences1997Because this is one of the first cases applying the Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, see also In re Smith, 925 P.2d 169, 174 (Utah 1996); In re Cassity, 875 P.2d 548 , 550 & n. 3 (Utah 1994), a brief overview of the Standards is appropriate and helpful to our opinion and the establishment of a standard of review. 1997Because this is one of the first cases applying the Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, see also In re Smith, 925 P.2d 169, 174 (Utah 1996); In re Cassity, 876 P.2d 548 , 550 & n. 3 (Utah 1994), a brief overview of the Standards is appropriate and helpful to our opinion and the establishment of a standard of review. | 1 | 1 |
Lemon v. Kurtzmanred2 sentences1993See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 , 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111 , 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). 1993See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 , 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111 , 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Myersgreen2 sentences1986See State v. Myers, 233 Kan. 611, 616 , 664 P.2d 834, 838 (1983). 2 . 1986See State v. Myers, 233 Kan. 611, 616 , 664 P.2d 834, 838 (1983). 2 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maughan v. Maughan
green
1 sentence2009Cases decided subsequent to the establishment of this framework have recognized that trial courts have discretion to "decif{de]l to merge the best interests of the child into the changed circumstances test ... [,] particularly ... when 'the initial custody award is premised on a temporary condition, a choice between marginal custody arrangements, ... or similar exceptional criteria'" Walton v. Walton, 814 P.2d 619, 621 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (quoting Maughan, 770 P.2d at 160 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
ALVILLAR v. Friel
green
2 sentences2006Id. at ¶ 35 n. 14. 6 . 2006In Gillmor v. Macey, 2005 UT App 351 , 121 P.3d 57 , cert. denied, 126 P.3d 772 (Utah 2005), this court explained that it considered the establishment of this rule to constitute [a] rejection of] the strict application of the "four corners” rule, which limits the boundaries of inquiry into whether an ambiguity exists in a contract to the contract's "four corners” and effectively excludes the evidence of any surrounding circumstances — outside of the writing — that might indicate that the contract language lacks the required degree of clarity. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Gillmor v. MacEy
green
2 sentences2006In Gillmor v. Macey, 2005 UT App 351 , 121 P.3d 57 , cert. denied, 126 P.3d 772 (Utah 2005), this court explained that it considered the establishment of this rule to constitute [a] rejection of] the strict application of the "four corners” rule, which limits the boundaries of inquiry into whether an ambiguity exists in a contract to the contract's "four corners” and effectively excludes the evidence of any surrounding circumstances — outside of the writing — that might indicate that the contract language lacks the required degree of clarity. 2006In Gillmor v. Macey, 2005 UT App 351 , 121 P.3d 57 , cert. denied, 126 P.3d 772 (Utah 2005), this court explained that it considered the establishment of this rule to constitute [a] rejection of] the strict application of the "four corners” rule, which limits the boundaries of inquiry into whether an ambiguity exists in a contract to the contract's "four corners” and effectively excludes the evidence of any surrounding circumstances — outside of the writing — that might indicate that the contract language lacks the required degree of clarity. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Whitehead
green
1 sentence2003The trial court granted Murray City summary judgment, concluding that Snyder's prayer was not afforded protection under Society of Seporationists v. Whitehead, 870 P.2d 916 (Utah 1998), the free exercise clause, or the establishment clause of the Utah Constitution. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Campos del Toro v. Collazo de Sotorra
green
1 sentence1998Id. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In Re Shannon
green
1 sentence1997Because this is one of the first cases applying the Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, see also In re Smith, 925 P.2d 169, 174 (Utah 1996); In re Cassity, 876 P.2d 548 , 550 & n. 3 (Utah 1994), a brief overview of the Standards is appropriate and helpful to our opinion and the establishment of a standard of review. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Matter of Cassity
green
1 sentence1997Because this is one of the first cases applying the Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, see also In re Smith, 925 P.2d 169, 174 (Utah 1996); In re Cassity, 875 P.2d 548 , 550 & n. 3 (Utah 1994), a brief overview of the Standards is appropriate and helpful to our opinion and the establishment of a standard of review. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.