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 2002–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fedorowiczgreen2 sentences2014Angel Investors, LLC v. Garrity, 2009 UT 40 , 119 n. 9, 216 P.3d 944 (observing that where a state rule is "substantively identical to its federal counterpart," we "freely refer to authorities which have interpreted the federal rule" (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67 , ¶ 30 n. 1, 52 P.3d 1194 ("Although the Federal Rules of Evidence are a separate body of law from the Utah Rules of Evidence, if the reasoning of a federal case interpreting or applying a federal evidentiary rule is cogent and logical, we may freely look to that case, absent a Utah case directly 2014Angel Investors, LLC v. Garrity, 2009 UT 40 , 119 n. 9, 216 P.3d 944 (observing that where a state rule is "substantively identical to its federal counterpart," we "freely refer to authorities which have interpreted the federal rule" (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67 , ¶ 30 n. 1, 52 P.3d 1194 ("Although the Federal Rules of Evidence are a separate body of law from the Utah Rules of Evidence, if the reasoning of a federal case interpreting or applying a federal evidentiary rule is cogent and logical, we may freely look to that case, absent a Utah case directly | 2 | 6 |
Hansen v. Heathgreen1 sentence2014Angel Investors, LLC v. Garrity, 2009 UT 40 , 119 n. 9, 216 P.3d 944 (observing that where a state rule is "substantively identical to its federal counterpart," we "freely refer to authorities which have interpreted the federal rule" (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67 , ¶ 30 n. 1, 52 P.3d 1194 ("Although the Federal Rules of Evidence are a separate body of law from the Utah Rules of Evidence, if the reasoning of a federal case interpreting or applying a federal evidentiary rule is cogent and logical, we may freely look to that case, absent a Utah case directly | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Orange Jell Beechumgreen1 sentence2014Id. at 689 , 108 S.Ct. 1496 ; United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 912 (5th Cir 1978) ("[A)n extrinsic offense [is] relevant to the issue of intent ... only if [the] offense was in fact committed and the defendant in fact committed it."). 26 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gomezgreen2 sentences2008See generally State v. Gomez, 2002 UT 120 , ¶ 33 n. 5, 63 P.3d 72 (looking to federal cases "applying a federal evidentiary rule" when reviewing "an analogous Utah evidentiary rule" and noting that Utah's rule 403 is identical to the {ederal rule). 2008See generally State v. Gomez, 2002 UT 120 , ¶ 33 n. 5, 63 P.3d 72 (looking to federal cases "applying a federal evidentiary rule" when reviewing "an analogous Utah evidentiary rule" and noting that Utah's rule 403 is identical to the {ederal rule). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Kearnsgreen1 sentence2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 1 |
Elkins v. Schneider, Fka Elzgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67 , ¶ 30 n. 1, 52 P.3d 1194 ("Although the Federal Rules of Evidence are a separate body of law from the Utah Rules of Evidence, if the reasoning of a federal case interpreting or applying a federal evidentiary rule is cogent and logical, we may freely look to that case, absent a Utah case directly on point, when we interpret or apply an analogous Utah evidentiary rule."), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1123 , 123 S.Ct. 859 , 154 L.Ed.2d 805 (2003). 3 . 2007See State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67 , ¶ 30 n. 1, 52 P.3d 1194 ("Although the Federal Rules of Evidence are a separate body of law from the Utah Rules of Evidence, if the reasoning of a federal case interpreting or applying a federal evidentiary rule is cogent and logical, we may freely look to that case, absent a Utah case directly on point, when we interpret or apply an analogous Utah evidentiary rule."), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1123 , 123 S.Ct. 859 , 154 L.Ed.2d 805 (2003). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Conawaygreen1 sentence2007See State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67 , ¶ 30 n. 1, 52 P.3d 1194 ("Although the Federal Rules of Evidence are a separate body of law from the Utah Rules of Evidence, if the reasoning of a federal case interpreting or applying a federal evidentiary rule is cogent and logical, we may look freely to that case, absent a Utah case directly on point, when we interpret or apply an analogous Utah evidentiary rule."). 21 A large number of federal courts that have addressed the issue have adopted the two-part test set forth in United States v. Robertson, 582 F.2d 1856 (5th Cir.1978), for determining when p | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Morgan O'brien, Donald Sheehy, and David Mizaurgreen1 sentence2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Danny Leon Guerrerogreen1 sentence2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Melinagreen1 sentence2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Swidangreen1 sentence2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Bridgesgreen1 sentence2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Angel Investors, LLC v. Garrity
green
2 sentences2014Angel Investors, LLC v. Garrity, 2009 UT 40 , 119 n. 9, 216 P.3d 944 (observing that where a state rule is "substantively identical to its federal counterpart," we "freely refer to authorities which have interpreted the federal rule" (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67 , ¶ 30 n. 1, 52 P.3d 1194 ("Although the Federal Rules of Evidence are a separate body of law from the Utah Rules of Evidence, if the reasoning of a federal case interpreting or applying a federal evidentiary rule is cogent and logical, we may freely look to that case, absent a Utah case directly 2014Angel Investors, LLC v. Garrity, 2009 UT 40 , 119 n. 9, 216 P.3d 944 (observing that where a state rule is "substantively identical to its federal counterpart," we "freely refer to authorities which have interpreted the federal rule" (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67 , ¶ 30 n. 1, 52 P.3d 1194 ("Although the Federal Rules of Evidence are a separate body of law from the Utah Rules of Evidence, if the reasoning of a federal case interpreting or applying a federal evidentiary rule is cogent and logical, we may freely look to that case, absent a Utah case directly | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Huddleston v. United States
green
2 sentences2014Angel Investors, LLC v. Garrity, 2009 UT 40 , 119 n. 9, 216 P.3d 944 (observing that where a state rule is "substantively identical to its federal counterpart," we "freely refer to authorities which have interpreted the federal rule" (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67 , ¶ 30 n. 1, 52 P.3d 1194 ("Although the Federal Rules of Evidence are a separate body of law from the Utah Rules of Evidence, if the reasoning of a federal case interpreting or applying a federal evidentiary rule is cogent and logical, we may freely look to that case, absent a Utah case directly 2014Angel Investors, LLC v. Garrity, 2009 UT 40 , 119 n. 9, 216 P.3d 944 (observing that where a state rule is "substantively identical to its federal counterpart," we "freely refer to authorities which have interpreted the federal rule" (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67 , ¶ 30 n. 1, 52 P.3d 1194 ("Although the Federal Rules of Evidence are a separate body of law from the Utah Rules of Evidence, if the reasoning of a federal case interpreting or applying a federal evidentiary rule is cogent and logical, we may freely look to that case, absent a Utah case directly | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. German Espinoza Montero-Camargo, United States of America v. Lorenzo Sanchez-Guillen
green
2 sentences2008In United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946 (10th Cir.1999), the {federal court disagreed with the district court's determination that the probative value of the government's expert testimony as to the value of the drugs found in the defendant's possession - was ' 'relatively low'" Id. at 950 . 2008In United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946 (10th Cir.1999), the {federal court disagreed with the district court's determination that the probative value of the government's expert testimony as to the value of the drugs found in the defendant's possession - was ' 'relatively low'" Id. at 950 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
United States v. Moore
green
1 sentence2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.