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.
7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hollandgreen2 sentences2024Again, Holland suggested that the attorney there had violated the duty of loyalty by “effectively join[ing] the state in an effort to attain a conviction or a [particular] sentence.” State v. Holland, 876 P.2d 357, 360 (Utah 1994) (quotation simplified). 2007While we have stated that "[iln order to establish an actual conflict, [a defendant] must demonstrate ... that the defense attorney was required to make a choice advancing his own interests to the detriment of his client's interests," Taylor I, 947 P.2d at 686 (internal quotation marks omitted), we have also found a conflict of interest where defense counsel took a position "that was directly contrary to [the defendant's] interest," State v. Holland, 876 P.2d 357, 360 (Utah 1994). | 2 | 2 |
Bowen v. Utah State Bargreen2 sentences2016See Bowen v. Utah State Bar, 2008 UT 5 , 1% 11-14, 177 P.3d 611 (attorney waived a conflict of interest challenge to a screening panel member where he raised the challenge eight months after the screening panel proceedings concluded and four months after he received a public reprimand from the ethics committee chair). 2016See Bowen v. Utah State Bar, 2008 UT 5 , 1% 11-14, 177 P.3d 611 (attorney waived a conflict of interest challenge to a screening panel member where he raised the challenge eight months after the screening panel proceedings concluded and four months after he received a public reprimand from the ethics committee chair). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2015See also, e.g., State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78, 85 (Utah Ct.App.1998) ("[Wihen an ineffectiveness claim is grounded on a conflict of interest, we presume prejudice if the defendant demonstrates that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 , 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 198 P.3d 11, 33 (2009) ("In the context of a conflict of interest claim, deficient performance is demonstrated by a showing that defense counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest that affected counsel's perf 2007While we have stated that "[iln order to establish an actual conflict, [a defendant] must demonstrate ... that the defense attorney was required to make a choice advancing his own interests to the detriment of his client's interests," Taylor I, 947 P.2d at 686 (internal quotation marks omitted), we have also found a conflict of interest where defense counsel took a position "that was directly contrary to [the defendant's] interest," State v. Holland, 876 P.2d 357, 360 (Utah 1994). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Brandleygreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. Sessions, 2014 UT 44, ¶ 39 , 342 P.3d 738 ; State v. Tirado, 2017 UT App 31, ¶ 11 , 392 P.3d 926 ; State v. Goodrich, 2016 UT App 72, ¶ 15 , 372 P.3d 79 ; State v. Martinez, 2013 UT App 39, ¶ 25 , 297 P.3d 653 ; State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78 , 83-86 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). ¶51 Indeed, while Mason largely discusses his own argument in duty-of-loyalty terms, he also appears to recognize its link to the conflict-of-interest standard, repeatedly asserting, within this same argument, that Successor Counsel’s actions constituted a “conflict of interest.” And he also identified thi 2024See, e.g., State v. Sessions, 2014 UT 44, ¶ 39 , 342 P.3d 738 ; State v. Tirado, 2017 UT App 31, ¶ 11 , 392 P.3d 926 ; State v. Goodrich, 2016 UT App 72, ¶ 15 , 372 P.3d 79 ; State v. Martinez, 2013 UT App 39, ¶ 25 , 297 P.3d 653 ; State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78 , 83-86 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). ¶51 Indeed, while Mason largely discusses his own argument in duty-of-loyalty terms, he also appears to recognize its link to the conflict-of-interest standard, repeatedly asserting, within this same argument, that Successor Counsel’s actions constituted a “conflict of interest.” And he also identified thi | 1 | 2 |
State v. Sessionsgreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. Sessions, 2014 UT 44, ¶ 39 , 342 P.3d 738 ; State v. Tirado, 2017 UT App 31, ¶ 11 , 392 P.3d 926 ; State v. Goodrich, 2016 UT App 72, ¶ 15 , 372 P.3d 79 ; State v. Martinez, 2013 UT App 39, ¶ 25 , 297 P.3d 653 ; State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78 , 83-86 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). ¶51 Indeed, while Mason largely discusses his own argument in duty-of-loyalty terms, he also appears to recognize its link to the conflict-of-interest standard, repeatedly asserting, within this same argument, that Successor Counsel’s actions constituted a “conflict of interest.” And he also identified thi 2024See, e.g., State v. Sessions, 2014 UT 44, ¶ 39 , 342 P.3d 738 ; State v. Tirado, 2017 UT App 31, ¶ 11 , 392 P.3d 926 ; State v. Goodrich, 2016 UT App 72, ¶ 15 , 372 P.3d 79 ; State v. Martinez, 2013 UT App 39, ¶ 25 , 297 P.3d 653 ; State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78 , 83-86 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). ¶51 Indeed, while Mason largely discusses his own argument in duty-of-loyalty terms, he also appears to recognize its link to the conflict-of-interest standard, repeatedly asserting, within this same argument, that Successor Counsel’s actions constituted a “conflict of interest.” And he also identified thi | 1 | 1 |
State v. Humphreygreen1 sentence2015See also, e.g., State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78, 85 (Utah Ct.App.1998) ("[Wihen an ineffectiveness claim is grounded on a conflict of interest, we presume prejudice if the defendant demonstrates that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 , 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 198 P.3d 11, 33 (2009) ("In the context of a conflict of interest claim, deficient performance is demonstrated by a showing that defense counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest that affected counsel's perf | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See also, e.g., State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78, 85 (Utah Ct.App.1998) ("[Wihen an ineffectiveness claim is grounded on a conflict of interest, we presume prejudice if the defendant demonstrates that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 , 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 198 P.3d 11, 33 (2009) ("In the context of a conflict of interest claim, deficient performance is demonstrated by a showing that defense counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest that affected counsel's perf | 1 | 1 |
People v. Doolingreen2 sentences2015See also, e.g., State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78, 85 (Utah Ct.App.1998) ("[Wihen an ineffectiveness claim is grounded on a conflict of interest, we presume prejudice if the defendant demonstrates that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 , 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 198 P.3d 11, 33 (2009) ("In the context of a conflict of interest claim, deficient performance is demonstrated by a showing that defense counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest that affected counsel's perf 2015See also, e.g., State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78, 85 (Utah Ct.App.1998) ("[Wihen an ineffectiveness claim is grounded on a conflict of interest, we presume prejudice if the defendant demonstrates that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 , 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 198 P.3d 11, 33 (2009) ("In the context of a conflict of interest claim, deficient performance is demonstrated by a showing that defense counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest that affected counsel's perf | 1 | 1 |
State v. Logangreen2 sentences1992See, e.g., State v. Logan, 236 Kan. 79, 85 , 689 P.2d 778, 785 (1989); Smith v. Beckman, 683 P.2d 1214, 1216 (Colo.Ct.App.1984). 1992See, e.g., State v. Logan, 236 Kan. 79, 85 , 689 P.2d 778, 785 (1989); Smith v. Beckman, 683 P.2d 1214, 1216 (Colo.Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Beckmangreen1 sentence1992See, e.g., State v. Logan, 236 Kan. 79, 85 , 689 P.2d 778, 785 (1989); Smith v. Beckman, 683 P.2d 1214, 1216 (Colo.Ct.App.1984). | 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. Martinez
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. Sessions, 2014 UT 44, ¶ 39 , 342 P.3d 738 ; State v. Tirado, 2017 UT App 31, ¶ 11 , 392 P.3d 926 ; State v. Goodrich, 2016 UT App 72, ¶ 15 , 372 P.3d 79 ; State v. Martinez, 2013 UT App 39, ¶ 25 , 297 P.3d 653 ; State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78 , 83-86 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). ¶51 Indeed, while Mason largely discusses his own argument in duty-of-loyalty terms, he also appears to recognize its link to the conflict-of-interest standard, repeatedly asserting, within this same argument, that Successor Counsel’s actions constituted a “conflict of interest.” And he also identified thi 2024See, e.g., State v. Sessions, 2014 UT 44, ¶ 39 , 342 P.3d 738 ; State v. Tirado, 2017 UT App 31, ¶ 11 , 392 P.3d 926 ; State v. Goodrich, 2016 UT App 72, ¶ 15 , 372 P.3d 79 ; State v. Martinez, 2013 UT App 39, ¶ 25 , 297 P.3d 653 ; State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78 , 83-86 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). ¶51 Indeed, while Mason largely discusses his own argument in duty-of-loyalty terms, he also appears to recognize its link to the conflict-of-interest standard, repeatedly asserting, within this same argument, that Successor Counsel’s actions constituted a “conflict of interest.” And he also identified thi | 2 | 2013–2024 |
State v. Goodrich
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. Sessions, 2014 UT 44, ¶ 39 , 342 P.3d 738 ; State v. Tirado, 2017 UT App 31, ¶ 11 , 392 P.3d 926 ; State v. Goodrich, 2016 UT App 72, ¶ 15 , 372 P.3d 79 ; State v. Martinez, 2013 UT App 39, ¶ 25 , 297 P.3d 653 ; State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78 , 83-86 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). ¶51 Indeed, while Mason largely discusses his own argument in duty-of-loyalty terms, he also appears to recognize its link to the conflict-of-interest standard, repeatedly asserting, within this same argument, that Successor Counsel’s actions constituted a “conflict of interest.” And he also identified thi 2024See, e.g., State v. Sessions, 2014 UT 44, ¶ 39 , 342 P.3d 738 ; State v. Tirado, 2017 UT App 31, ¶ 11 , 392 P.3d 926 ; State v. Goodrich, 2016 UT App 72, ¶ 15 , 372 P.3d 79 ; State v. Martinez, 2013 UT App 39, ¶ 25 , 297 P.3d 653 ; State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78 , 83-86 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). ¶51 Indeed, while Mason largely discusses his own argument in duty-of-loyalty terms, he also appears to recognize its link to the conflict-of-interest standard, repeatedly asserting, within this same argument, that Successor Counsel’s actions constituted a “conflict of interest.” And he also identified thi | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Tirado
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. Sessions, 2014 UT 44, ¶ 39 , 342 P.3d 738 ; State v. Tirado, 2017 UT App 31, ¶ 11 , 392 P.3d 926 ; State v. Goodrich, 2016 UT App 72, ¶ 15 , 372 P.3d 79 ; State v. Martinez, 2013 UT App 39, ¶ 25 , 297 P.3d 653 ; State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78 , 83-86 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). ¶51 Indeed, while Mason largely discusses his own argument in duty-of-loyalty terms, he also appears to recognize its link to the conflict-of-interest standard, repeatedly asserting, within this same argument, that Successor Counsel’s actions constituted a “conflict of interest.” And he also identified thi 2024See, e.g., State v. Sessions, 2014 UT 44, ¶ 39 , 342 P.3d 738 ; State v. Tirado, 2017 UT App 31, ¶ 11 , 392 P.3d 926 ; State v. Goodrich, 2016 UT App 72, ¶ 15 , 372 P.3d 79 ; State v. Martinez, 2013 UT App 39, ¶ 25 , 297 P.3d 653 ; State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78 , 83-86 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). ¶51 Indeed, while Mason largely discusses his own argument in duty-of-loyalty terms, he also appears to recognize its link to the conflict-of-interest standard, repeatedly asserting, within this same argument, that Successor Counsel’s actions constituted a “conflict of interest.” And he also identified thi | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2015Indeed, Cuyler addressed a situation in which the defendant's lawyers concurrently represented two co-defendants with conflicting interests. 466 U.S. at 337 - *689 38, 104 S.Ct. 1805 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon
green
1 sentence2015Indeed, Cuyler addressed a situation in which the defendant's lawyers concurrently represented two co-defendants with conflicting interests. 466 U.S. at 337 - *689 38, 104 S.Ct. 1805 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.