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 1953–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
American National Fire Insurance Co. v. Farmers Insurance Exchangegreen2 sentences2012Exch., 927 P.2d 186, 190 (Utah 1996) (holding "that the most significant relationship test ... is the appropriate rule for Utah courts to apply to a conflict of laws question in a contract dispute" (citing Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188 (1971))). 2012See American Nat'l, 927 P.2d at 188 . "124 One Beacon challenges the district court's basis for its grant of summary judgment, namely, its determination that under the most significant relationship analysis, articulated in section 188 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, Texas law controls this contractual dispute. | 3 | 3 |
Ace Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurancegreen2 sentences2012See id. at 686-87 . 16 . 2012See id. at 686‐87. 20100327‐CA 23 arise from the purchase of El Paso Products by Huntsman decades after the CGL insurance policy was issued and after the active relationship between the contracting parties had dissipated. | 2 | 2 |
Records v. Briggsgreen2 sentences2002Exch., 927 P.2d 186, 190 (Utah 1996) (holding "that the most significant relationship test as explained in Restatement of Conflict section 188 is the appropriate rule for Utah courts to apply- to a conflict of laws question in a contract dispute"); see also Records v. Briggs, 887 P.2d 864, 867-68 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (explaining that this court has adopted the "most significant relationship" test over the previously used lex loci approach for torts and likely intended to apply the approach for other types of claims, and identifying federal cases that concluded we "would apply the 'most significa 2001See id. at 219 ; see also Records v. Briggs, 887 P.2d 864 , 867 & n. 3 (Utah.Ct.App.1994) (recognizing that Utah applies the most significant relationship test to tort cases and section 145 states the appropriate test for tort cases). | 2 | 2 |
Doe v. Nevada Crossing, Inc.green1 sentence2002See id. at 167 . ¶ 17 Because this court recognizes that the main interest protected in a claim for alienation of affections is a spouse’s consortium interest, we find the analysis in Doe persuasive, and adopt it. | 1 | 1 |
Forsman v. Forsmangreen1 sentence2001See id. at 219 ; see also Records v. Briggs, 887 P.2d 864 , 867 & n. 3 (Utah.Ct.App.1994) (recognizing that Utah applies the most significant relationship test to tort cases and section 145 states the appropriate test for tort cases). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Colemangreen2 sentences1994See United States v. Martinez-Zayas, 857 F.2d 122 , 133-34 n. 7 (3rd Cir.1988) (concerned search of resident's purse rather than visitor's); People v. Coleman, 436 Mich. 124 , 461 N.W.2d 615, 617 (Mich.1990) (search of visitor's purse upheld where she "had a special relationship to the person named in the search warrant and to the home being searched"). [2] The majority claims that adopting the "relationship" test would allow supposed "visitors" to thwart the purpose of a search warrant by simply claiming ownership of "the contraband." While the relationship test in reality avoids such absurd 1994See United States v. Martinez-Zayas, 857 F.2d 122 , 133-34 n. 7 (3rd Cir.1988) (concerned search of resident's purse rather than visitor's); People v. Coleman, 436 Mich. 124 , 461 N.W.2d 615, 617 (Mich.1990) (search of visitor's purse upheld where she "had a special relationship to the person named in the search warrant and to the home being searched"). [2] The majority claims that adopting the "relationship" test would allow supposed "visitors" to thwart the purpose of a search warrant by simply claiming ownership of "the contraband." While the relationship test in reality avoids such absurd | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Martinez-Zayasgreen1 sentence1994See United States v. Martinez-Zayas, 857 F.2d 122 , 133-34 n. 7 (3rd Cir.1988) (concerned search of resident's purse rather than visitor's); People v. Coleman, 436 Mich. 124 , 461 N.W.2d 615, 617 (Mich.1990) (search of visitor's purse upheld where she "had a special relationship to the person named in the search warrant and to the home being searched"). [2] The majority claims that adopting the "relationship" test would allow supposed "visitors" to thwart the purpose of a search warrant by simply claiming ownership of "the contraband." While the relationship test in reality avoids such absurd | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Patricia Younggreen2 sentences1994United States v. Young, 909 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 90 , 116 L.Ed.2d 62 (1991). 1994United States v. Young, 909 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 90 , 116 L.Ed.2d 62 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
DeBry v. Godbe
green
2 sentences2002In the context of the judicial proceeding privilege, we have previously stated that "[dJoubts should be resolved in favor of the statement having reference to the subject matter of the proceeding because of the important purpose the privilege serves." DeBry v. Godbe, 1999 UT 111, ¶16 , 992 P.2d 979 (citation ommitted). 2002In the context of the judicial proceeding privilege, we have previously stated that "[dJoubts should be resolved in favor of the statement having reference to the subject matter of the proceeding because of the important purpose the privilege serves." DeBry v. Godbe, 1999 UT 111, ¶16 , 992 P.2d 979 (citation ommitted). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Foley v. Whitley
green
2 sentences1994United States v. Young, 909 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 90 , 116 L.Ed.2d 62 (1991). 1994United States v. Young, 909 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 90 , 116 L.Ed.2d 62 (1991). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Harrigan v. Government of the Virgin Islands
green
2 sentences1994United States v. Young, 909 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 90 , 116 L.Ed.2d 62 (1991). 1994United States v. Young, 909 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 90 , 116 L.Ed.2d 62 (1991). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
City of Fort Worth v. Wiggins
green
1 sentence1953It does not determine that the attractive nuisance doctrine would take the case beyond the purview of immunity. [8] In this case, the court did not consider the relationship of the doctrine of immunity inasmuch as there was no support for the contention of attractive nuisance. [9] For a discussion of the possible bases of this exception see Prosser on Torts. p. 1074, § 108. [1] Tex.Civ.App., 299 S.W. 468 , affirmed Tex.Com.App., 5 S.W.2d 761 . [2] Supra. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Wiggins v. City of Fort Worth
green
1 sentence1953It does not determine that the attractive nuisance doctrine would take the case beyond the purview of immunity. [8] In this case, the court did not consider the relationship of the doctrine of immunity inasmuch as there was no support for the contention of attractive nuisance. [9] For a discussion of the possible bases of this exception see Prosser on Torts. p. 1074, § 108. [1] Tex.Civ.App., 299 S.W. 468 , affirmed Tex.Com.App., 5 S.W.2d 761 . [2] Supra. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.