8 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Vincent Jay Letterloughgreen2 sentences2017Citing cases from other circuits, the Letterlough court held that ―a multiplicity of factors‖ help to indicate ―when more than one conviction constitutes a separate and distinct criminal episode.‖ 63 F.3d at 335 . 2017Citing cases from other circuits, the Letterlough court held that “a multiplicity of factors” help to indicate “when more than one conviction constitutes a separate and distinct criminal episode.” 63 F.3d at 335 . | 1 | 2 |
Coury v. Protgreen2 sentences2022And in applying these rather orthodox principles of domicile, courts look to a multiplicity of factors including, but most certainly not limited to, ―the places where the [individual] exercises civil and political rights, pays taxes, owns real and personal property, has driver‘s and other licenses, maintains bank accounts, belongs to clubs and churches, has places of business or employment, and maintains a home for his [or her] family.‖ Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 251 (5th Cir. 1996). ―No single factor is determinative.‖ Id. ¶35 Subsection (3) of the Domicile Provision largely reflects these p 2022And in applying these rather orthodox principles of domicile, courts look to a multiplicity of factors including, but most certainly not limited to, ―the places where the [individual] exercises civil and political rights, pays taxes, owns real and personal property, has driver‘s and other licenses, maintains bank accounts, belongs to clubs and churches, has places of business or employment, and maintains a home for his [or her] family.‖ Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 251 (5th Cir. 1996). ―No single factor is determinative.‖ Id. ¶35 Subsection (3) of the Domicile Provision largely reflects these p | 1 | 1 |
Home Builders Ass'n of Utah v. City of American Forkgreen1 sentence2000See id. at 430 ¶ 20. | 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. Morrison
green
2 sentences2013In State v. Morrison, 2001 UT 73 , 31 P.3d 547 , the supreme court employed this approach as it evaluated a multiplicity challenge to the sexual exploitation of a minor statute. 2013In State v. Morrison, 2001 UT 73 , 31 P.3d 547 , the supreme court employed this approach as it evaluated a multiplicity challenge to the sexual exploitation of a minor statute. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Hattrich
green
2 sentences2022In this sense, our “evaluation of a multiplicity claim requires analysis of the statutes under which a criminal defendant is charged.” State v. Hattrich, 2013 UT App 177, ¶ 33 , 317 P.3d 433 . 2022In this sense, our “evaluation of a multiplicity claim requires analysis of the statutes under which a criminal defendant is charged.” State v. Hattrich, 2013 UT App 177, ¶ 33 , 317 P.3d 433 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Calvert
green
1 sentence2022Because there were two victims here, “a motion to dismiss on the basis of multiplicity would have been denied.” Calvert, 2017 UT App 212, ¶ 34 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Rivera
green
1 sentence2022We “seek to give effect to the intent of the Legislature” in such an analysis, and to “ascertain that intent, we look first to the text of the statute within its context.” Rasabout, 2015 UT 72, ¶ 26 . 20200169-CA 7 2022 UT App 44 State v. Rivera ¶27 The offense in question here is aggravated assault. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. James
green
1 sentence2022A “dangerous weapon” includes “any item capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Id. § 76-1-601(7)(a). ¶28 Rivera claims that under a multiplicity analysis, there could only be one count of aggravated assault in this case because he was charged based on “one single movement” that involved just “a single screwdriver.” But Rivera’s interpretation of the allowable unit of prosecution for this offense is unduly restrictive. ¶29 For crimes “against the person,” “offenses committed against multiple victims are not the same,” and “a single criminal act or episode” can “constitute as many o | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Rasabout
green
1 sentence2022We “seek to give effect to the intent of the Legislature” in such an analysis, and to “ascertain that intent, we look first to the text of the statute within its context.” Rasabout, 2015 UT 72, ¶ 26 . 20200169-CA 7 2022 UT App 44 State v. Rivera ¶27 The offense in question here is aggravated assault. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Rasabout and Kaykeo
green
2 sentences2013State v. Rasabout, 2013 UT App 71, ¶¶ 16-17 , 299 P.3d 625 . 34 The Utah Legislature has instructed courts to construe the "laws of this state ... according to the fair import of their terms to promote justice." Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-106 (LexisNexis 2012). 2013State v. Rasabout, 2013 UT App 71, ¶¶ 16-17 , 299 P.3d 625 . 34 The Utah Legislature has instructed courts to construe the "laws of this state ... according to the fair import of their terms to promote justice." Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-106 (LexisNexis 2012). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Reed
green
1 sentence2002State v. Reed, 2000 UT 68 at I 29. 137 In this case, Jentzech's testimony was highly probative. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.