7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Langeland v. Monarch Motors, Inc.green2 sentences2000See Langeland v. Monarch Motors, Inc., 952 P.2d 1058, 1060-61 (Utah 1998). [O]ur review of [a 36(b)] decision is not a typical review for "abuse of discretion." Instead, we review these decisions in two steps, using ... a "conditional" discretionary standard.... [F]irst ... we review the trial court's determination as to whether amendment or withdrawal would serve the presentation of the merits and whether amendment or withdrawal would result in prejudice to the nonmoving party. [Only then do] we review the trial court's discretion.... [B]ecause the rule does not give the trial court discretio 2000See Langeland v. Monarch Motors, Inc., 952 P.2d 1058, 1060-61 (Utah 1998). [Ojur review of [a 36(b) ] decision is not a typical review for "abuse of discretion." Instead, we review these decisions in two steps, using ... a "conditional" discretionary standard.... [Flirst .. we review the trial court's determination as to whether amendment or withdrawal would serve the presentation of the merits and whether amendment or withdrawal would result in prejudice to the nonmoving party. [Only then do] we review the trial court's discretion.... [BJecause the rule does not give the trial court discretio | 2 | 2 |
cluster 10870808green2 sentences2026The business records exception allowing the admission of hearsay does not turn on the apparent regularity of a document; rather, the exception requires either testimony of argument does not concern a second level of hearsay but, instead, focuses simply on the admissibility of the records themselves under the business records exception. 20240613-CA 16 2026 UT App 89 Holmes v. Smith a qualified witness or certification establishing the conditions of rule 803(6). 2026See id. | 1 | 1 |
Wheeler v. McPhersongreen2 sentences2018See Wheeler , 2002 UT 16 , ¶¶ 18-19, 40 P.3d 632 (recognizing that "governmental entities may be estopped from raising the Immunity Act as a ... defense," but finding that the governmental entity was not estopped from raising the insufficiency of the notice because circumstances supporting estoppel were absent from the case); Shunk v. State , 924 P.2d 879 , 881-82 (Utah 1996) (concluding "that there is no basis to invoke an estoppel against defendants for misleading plaintiff by their answer" in an earlier case on the issue of proper notice because "the State gave [the plaintiff] no misinforma 2018See Wheeler , 2002 UT 16 , ¶¶ 18-19, 40 P.3d 632 (recognizing that "governmental entities may be estopped from raising the Immunity Act as a ... defense," but finding that the governmental entity was not estopped from raising the insufficiency of the notice because circumstances supporting estoppel were absent from the case); Shunk v. State , 924 P.2d 879 , 881-82 (Utah 1996) (concluding "that there is no basis to invoke an estoppel against defendants for misleading plaintiff by their answer" in an earlier case on the issue of proper notice because "the State gave [the plaintiff] no misinforma | 1 | 1 |
GOLL v. Muscaragreen2 sentences2000See, e.g., Goll v. Muscara, 211 Pa.Super. 93 , 235 A.2d 443, 445 (1967). 2000See, e.g., Goll v. Muscara, 211 Pa.Super. 93 , 235 A.2d 443, 445 (1967). | 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. Bertul
green
1 sentence2023Thus, the statements met the conditions of the rule, and no additional foundation was required. 4 ¶21 Next, Clayton asserts—citing State v. Bertul, 664 P.2d 1181 (Utah 1983)—that case law from our supreme court mandates that the officers’ statements be excluded from consideration at the preliminary hearing. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Forsman v. Forsman
green
1 sentence2018See Wheeler , 2002 UT 16 , ¶¶ 18-19, 40 P.3d 632 (recognizing that "governmental entities may be estopped from raising the Immunity Act as a ... defense," but finding that the governmental entity was not estopped from raising the insufficiency of the notice because circumstances supporting estoppel were absent from the case); Shunk v. State , 924 P.2d 879 , 881-82 (Utah 1996) (concluding "that there is no basis to invoke an estoppel against defendants for misleading plaintiff by their answer" in an earlier case on the issue of proper notice because "the State gave [the plaintiff] no misinforma | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rice v. Granite School District
green
1 sentence2018If a governmental entity is only subject to estoppel once immunity has been waived, see Rice , 456 P.2d at 162 , then it must follow that estoppel cannot apply to one of the conditions to the waiver of that immunity. ¶73 Since Rice , we have issued opinions that continue to acknowledge the availability of estoppel against a governmental entity in Immunity Act cases. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Shunk v. State
green
1 sentence2018See Wheeler , 2002 UT 16 , ¶¶ 18-19, 40 P.3d 632 (recognizing that "governmental entities may be estopped from raising the Immunity Act as a ... defense," but finding that the governmental entity was not estopped from raising the insufficiency of the notice because circumstances supporting estoppel were absent from the case); Shunk v. State , 924 P.2d 879 , 881-82 (Utah 1996) (concluding "that there is no basis to invoke an estoppel against defendants for misleading plaintiff by their answer" in an earlier case on the issue of proper notice because "the State gave [the plaintiff] no misinforma | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kessler v. Mortenson
neutral
2 sentences2018Kessler , 2000 UT 95 , ¶ 15, 16 P.3d 1225 ("Recovery [under the attractive nuisance doctrine] can only be had when the conditions of the rule are met. 2018Kessler , 2000 UT 95 , ¶ 15, 16 P.3d 1225 ("Recovery [under the attractive nuisance doctrine] can only be had when the conditions of the rule are met. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.