8 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oman v. Davis School Districtgreen2 sentences2017See Penrod v. Nu Creation Creme, Inc., 669 P.2d 873, 875 (Utah 1983) (“Since a negligent misrepresentation claim [based in state law] was asserted in the prior federal court action, the disposi-tive issue in this case is whether that claim is now barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, i.e., whether plaintiffs’ second claim for relief was either litigated or could have been litigated in the federal court action.”); see also Oman, 2008 UT 70, ¶ 27 , 194 P.3d 956 (“[W]e conclude that the [state law wrongful termination] issue was resolved by the federal district court and that the state dist 2017See Penrod v. Nu Creation Creme, Inc., 669 P.2d 873, 875 (Utah 1983) (“Since a negligent misrepresentation claim [based in state law] was asserted in the prior federal court action, the disposi-tive issue in this case is whether that claim is now barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, i.e., whether plaintiffs’ second claim for relief was either litigated or could have been litigated in the federal court action.”); see also Oman, 2008 UT 70, ¶ 27 , 194 P.3d 956 (“[W]e conclude that the [state law wrongful termination] issue was resolved by the federal district court and that the state dist | 2 | 2 |
Penrod v. Nu Creation Creme, Inc.green2 sentences2017See Penrod v. Nu Creation Creme, Inc., 669 P.2d 873, 875 (Utah 1983) (“Since a negligent misrepresentation claim [based in state law] was asserted in the prior federal court action, the dispositive issue in this case is whether that claim is now barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, i.e., whether plaintiffs’ second claim for relief was either litigated or could have been litigated in the federal court action.”); see also Oman, 2008 UT 70, ¶ 27 (“[W]e conclude that the [state law wrongful termination] issue was resolved by the federal district court and that the state district court was b 2017See Penrod v. Nu Creation Creme, Inc., 669 P.2d 873, 875 (Utah 1983) (“Since a negligent misrepresentation claim [based in state law] was asserted in the prior federal court action, the disposi-tive issue in this case is whether that claim is now barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, i.e., whether plaintiffs’ second claim for relief was either litigated or could have been litigated in the federal court action.”); see also Oman, 2008 UT 70, ¶ 27 , 194 P.3d 956 (“[W]e conclude that the [state law wrongful termination] issue was resolved by the federal district court and that the state dist | 2 | 2 |
Kuhar v. Thompson Manufacturinggreen1 sentence2024See Kuhar, 2022 UT App 22, ¶ 9 . | 1 | 1 |
Haskell v. Wakefield and Associatesgreen1 sentence2021See also Holmes v. Cannon, 2016 UT 42, ¶¶ 8, 10 , 387 P.3d 971 . 20200412-CA 12 2021 UT App 123 Haskell v. Wakefield & Assocs. | 1 | 1 |
Cannon v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2021See also Holmes v. Cannon, 2016 UT 42, ¶¶ 8, 10 , 387 P.3d 971 . 20200412-CA 12 2021 UT App 123 Haskell v. Wakefield & Assocs. 2021See also Holmes v. Cannon, 2016 UT 42, ¶¶ 8, 10 , 387 P.3d 971 . 20200412-CA 12 2021 UT App 123 Haskell v. Wakefield & Assocs. | 1 | 1 |
Culbertson v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SALT LAKE COUNTYgreen2 sentences2005By ignoring the particular requirements of issue preclusion, the district court erred. ¶34 One of the four requirements for applying the doctrine of issue preclusion is that “the issue decided in the prior adjudication ... be identical to the one presented.” Culbertson, 2001 UT 108 at ¶ 25, 44 P.3d 642 . 2005By ignoring the particular requirements of issue preclusion, the district court erred. ¶34 One of the four requirements for applying the doctrine of issue preclusion is that “the issue decided in the prior adjudication ... be identical to the one presented.” Culbertson, 2001 UT 108 at ¶ 25, 44 P.3d 642 . | 1 | 1 |
Sevy v. Security Title Co. of Southern Utahgreen1 sentence1998See Stevensen v. Goodson, 924 P.2d 339, 353 (Utah 1996) (relying on Sevy v. Security Title Co., 902 P.2d 629, 632 (Utah 1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Stevensen v. Goodsongreen1 sentence1998See Stevensen v. Goodson, 924 P.2d 339, 353 (Utah 1996) (relying on Sevy v. Security Title Co., 902 P.2d 629, 632 (Utah 1995)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 10874392
green
1 sentence2026GMW divided Scenario 3 into Scenario 3a and Scenario 3b, with the financing in Scenario 3a coming by way of equity investment and the financing in Scenario 3b being obtained from commercial lenders. 20241013-CA 7 2026 UT App 93 GeoMetWatch Corp. v. Durham Jones & Pinegar PC ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶13 GMW appeals, first asserting that the district court erred in granting summary judgment against GMW on its lost profits claims based on the doctrine of issue preclusion. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Buckner v. Kennard
green
2 sentences2024Applying Utah law, the court of appeals used the issue preclusion standard set out in Buckner v. Kennard, 2004 UT 78 , 99 P.3d 842 . 2024Applying Utah law, the court of appeals used the issue preclusion standard set out in Buckner v. Kennard, 2004 UT 78 , 99 P.3d 842 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Moss v. Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless
green
2 sentences2014Moss v. Parr Wad doups Brown Gee & Loveless, 2012 UT 42, ¶ 23 , 285 P.3d 1157 . 2014Moss v. Parr Wad doups Brown Gee & Loveless, 2012 UT 42, ¶ 23 , 285 P.3d 1157 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
MacRis & Associates, Inc. v. Neways, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014He relies on an older and differently worded formulation of the issue preclusion test that expressed the final judgment requirement as "the issue must have been decided in a final judgment on the merits in the previous action." Macris, 2000 UT 93, ¶ 37 , 16 P.3d 1214 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2014He relies on an older and differently worded formulation of the issue preclusion test that expressed the final judgment requirement as "the issue must have been decided in a final judgment on the merits in the previous action." Macris, 2000 UT 93, ¶ 37 , 16 P.3d 1214 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.