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.
8 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1913–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
King v. Searle Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2020And “[s]ince res ipsa loquitur generally raises only an inference and not a presumption of negligence, the fact finder may choose either to accept or reject that inference.” King, 832 P.2d at 861 . ¶20 To rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, a “plaintiff must establish an evidentiary foundation from which a finder of fact could logically conclude that an injury was probably caused 20190206-CA 9 2020 UT App 85 Berger v. Ogden Regional Medical Center by negligence.” Baczuk, 2000 UT App 225, ¶ 6 . 1993Because res ipsa loquitur "raises only an inference and not a presumption of negligence, the fact finder may choose either to accept or reject that inference.” King v. Searle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 832 P.2d 858, 861 (Utah 1992). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Barrettgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Barrett, 2005 UT 88, ¶ 16 , 127 P.3d 682 (“[T]rial courts do not have discretion to misapply the law.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)). 32 Cite as: 2021 UT 50 Opinion of the Court Richins engaged in this behavior previously, the jury would do anything other than indulge the inference rule 404(b) exists to prevent. ¶106 Although the district court erred by failing to exclude the evidence, we applaud two steps that the State and the district court took to mitigate the prejudice that would flow from the evidence’s admission. 2021See State v. Barrett, 2005 UT 88, ¶ 16 , 127 P.3d 682 (“[T]rial courts do not have discretion to misapply the law.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)). 32 Cite as: 2021 UT 50 Opinion of the Court Richins engaged in this behavior previously, the jury would do anything other than indulge the inference rule 404(b) exists to prevent. ¶106 Although the district court erred by failing to exclude the evidence, we applaud two steps that the State and the district court took to mitigate the prejudice that would flow from the evidence’s admission. | 1 | 1 |
Hayseeds, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas.green1 sentence1996Co., 510 So.2d 759, 760 (La.Ct.App.1987) (observing that the burden of proof could be established by the preponderance of the evidence " 'where the evidence is of such impact that it will sustain no other reasonable hypothesis but that the claimant is responsible for the fire’") (citation omitted); Hayseeds, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty, 352 S.E.2d 73, 77 (W.Va.1986) (affirming jury instruction stating that the burden of proof was by a preponderance but " 'such proof of voluntary and intentional burning should be clear and satisfactory ... and the inference or presumption to which the fa | 1 | 1 |
Clifton v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CAS. INS. CO.green1 sentence1996Co., 510 So.2d 759, 760 (La.Ct.App.1987) (observing that the burden of proof could be established by the preponderance of the evidence " 'where the evidence is of such impact that it will sustain no other reasonable hypothesis but that the claimant is responsible for the fire’") (citation omitted); Hayseeds, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty, 352 S.E.2d 73, 77 (W.Va.1986) (affirming jury instruction stating that the burden of proof was by a preponderance but " 'such proof of voluntary and intentional burning should be clear and satisfactory ... and the inference or presumption to which the fa | 1 | 1 |
Kusy v. K-Mart Apparel Fashion Corp.green1 sentence1992Ballow, 699 P.2d at 723 ; Kusy v. K-Mart Apparel Fashion Corp., 681 P.2d 1232, 1235 (Utah 1984). 1 The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur requires a plaintiff to establish a foundation from which an inference of negligence can be drawn. | 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. Richins
green
2 sentences2026Stated differently, we have no confidence that, having [been] told . . . that [the defendant] engaged in this behavior previously, the jury would do anything other than indulge the inference rule 404(b) exists to prevent. 20240257-CA 40 2026 UT App 83 State v. Shay Richins, 2021 UT 50, ¶ 105 . 2021Richins claims that when the statements of former accusers are admitted to rebut a claim of fabrication, this evidence 12 Cite as: 2021 UT 50 Opinion of the Court does little more than invite the jury to indulge the improper inference that rule 404(b) is aimed at preventing. | 2 | 2021–2026 |
cluster 10863449
green
1 sentence2026Stated differently, we have no confidence that, having [been] told . . . that [the defendant] engaged in this behavior previously, the jury would do anything other than indulge the inference rule 404(b) exists to prevent. 20240257-CA 40 2026 UT App 83 State v. Shay Richins, 2021 UT 50, ¶ 105 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Berger v. Ogden Regional Medical Center
green
1 sentence2020And “[s]ince res ipsa loquitur generally raises only an inference and not a presumption of negligence, the fact finder may choose either to accept or reject that inference.” King, 832 P.2d at 861 . ¶20 To rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, a “plaintiff must establish an evidentiary foundation from which a finder of fact could logically conclude that an injury was probably caused 20190206-CA 9 2020 UT App 85 Berger v. Ogden Regional Medical Center by negligence.” Baczuk, 2000 UT App 225, ¶ 6 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Baczuk v. Salt Lake Regional Medical Center
green
1 sentence2020And “[s]ince res ipsa loquitur generally raises only an inference and not a presumption of negligence, the fact finder may choose either to accept or reject that inference.” King, 832 P.2d at 861 . ¶20 To rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, a “plaintiff must establish an evidentiary foundation from which a finder of fact could logically conclude that an injury was probably caused 20190206-CA 9 2020 UT App 85 Berger v. Ogden Regional Medical Center by negligence.” Baczuk, 2000 UT App 225, ¶ 6 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ballow v. Monroe
green
1 sentence1992Ballow, 699 P.2d at 723 ; Kusy v. K-Mart Apparel Fashion Corp., 681 P.2d 1232, 1235 (Utah 1984). 1 The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur requires a plaintiff to establish a foundation from which an inference of negligence can be drawn. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Babcock v. Dangerfield
green
2 sentences1944From the allegation and proof of ownership at that time, the inference or presumption would follow that the ownership continued as alleged until the contrary was made to appear.” And in Babcock v. Dangerfield et al., 98 Utah 10 , 94 P. 2d 862 , 864: “In the present case the appellant proved a chain of title from the patentee to himself. 1944From the allegation and proof of ownership at that time, the inference or presumption would follow that the ownership continued as alleged until the contrary was made to appear.” And in Babcock v. Dangerfield et al., 98 Utah 10 , 94 P. 2d 862 , 864: “In the present case the appellant proved a chain of title from the patentee to himself. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Rogers v. Buckingham
green
1 sentence1913In the ease of Rogers v. Buckingham, supra, the transaction there involved, like the one in this case, ivas the only one that had been entered into by the agent for the principal, and the court held that a single transaction by an agent, where no arrangement existed between the principal and such agent with regard to the compensation he should receive or the rate he should reserve, was insufficient to au- tborize an inference or presumption of fact that tbe agent was authorized to exact usury. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.