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 1906–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Serygreen1 sentence2010After his motion to suppress the methamphetamine evidence was denied, Lowe entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal, see State v. Sery, 758 P.2d 935, 939 (Utah Ct.App.1988). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barnhartgreen1 sentence1993State v. Barnhart, 850 P.2d 473, 475-76 (Utah App.1993). 3 If a trial court’s finding of ultimate fact is made in violation of these legal guidelines, it is “induced by an erroneous view of the law.” Walker, 743 P.2d at 193 (quoting Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2585 (1971)). 4 When an ultimate finding of fact is made in violation of a legal guideline, we correct it under a correction-of-error standard of review. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thurmangreen2 sentences1993See Thurman, 846 P.2d at 1271-1272 ; Richardson, 843 P.2d at 522 (Bench, P.J., concurring). 1993See id. (“each new opinion narrows the universe of unsettled questions”); see also Richardson, 843 P.2d at 524-25 (Bench, P.J., concurring) (if injustice occurs because of disparate treatment of similar facts by different trial courts, “the field of inquiry should be restricted by adjusting the governing law”). *476 We do not, however, apply the correction-of-error standard to every aspect of a trial court’s finding of ultimate fact. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Richardsongreen2 sentences1993State v. Richardson, 843 P.2d 517, 521-22 (Utah App.1992) (Bench, P.J., concurring). 1993See id. (“each new opinion narrows the universe of unsettled questions”); see also Richardson, 843 P.2d at 524-25 (Bench, P.J., concurring) (if injustice occurs because of disparate treatment of similar facts by different trial courts, “the field of inquiry should be restricted by adjusting the governing law”). *476 We do not, however, apply the correction-of-error standard to every aspect of a trial court’s finding of ultimate fact. | 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. Millett
green
1 sentence2025In addition, officers obtained a sample of Millett’s blood, which also tested positive for methamphetamine. ¶5 After investigation, the State eventually charged Millett with possession of a firearm by a restricted person, possession or use of a controlled substance, interference with an arresting officer, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving with a measurable controlled substance in the body. 20230449-CA 3 2025 UT App 67 State v. Millett ¶6 Later, Millett filed a motion to suppress, asking the court “for an order suppressing any and all evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2025In addition, officers obtained a sample of Millett’s blood, which also tested positive for methamphetamine. ¶5 After investigation, the State eventually charged Millett with possession of a firearm by a restricted person, possession or use of a controlled substance, interference with an arresting officer, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving with a measurable controlled substance in the body. 20230449-CA 3 2025 UT App 67 State v. Millett ¶6 Later, Millett filed a motion to suppress, asking the court “for an order suppressing any and all evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Jacobsen
green
1 sentence2024Id. at 111–12. ¶35 The Jacobsen Court determined that, under these circumstances, the private search exception applied. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Walker
green
1 sentence1993State v. Barnhart, 850 P.2d 473, 475-76 (Utah App.1993). 3 If a trial court’s finding of ultimate fact is made in violation of these legal guidelines, it is “induced by an erroneous view of the law.” Walker, 743 P.2d at 193 (quoting Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2585 (1971)). 4 When an ultimate finding of fact is made in violation of a legal guideline, we correct it under a correction-of-error standard of review. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Hess v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1992When a legal principle guides the factfinder, the factfinder’s task differs from the finding of a basic or historical fact because “[t]he field of inquiry has limits defined, or capable of definition, by legal principle and judicial discussion.” Id. at 515 (quoting Pollock on Torts, 10th Ed. pg 462-63). 2 In other words, the factfinder is not allowed to wander about picking just any old fact it finds persuasive or conclusive; rather, the factfinder must remain within a specific field of inquiry defined by the law and consider specific factual issues required by law to be considered. 3 An appel 1992When a legal principle guides the factfinder, the factfinder's task differs from the finding of a basic or historical fact because "[t]he field of inquiry has limits defined, or capable of definition, by *522 legal principle and judicial discussion." Id. at 515 (quoting Pollock on Torts, 10th Ed. pg 462-63). [2] In other words, the factfinder is not allowed to wander about picking just any old fact it finds persuasive or conclusive; rather, the factfinder must remain within a specific field of inquiry defined by the law and consider specific factual issues required by law to be considered. [3] | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Mooney v. Olsen
green
1 sentence1906Blit, as was said by Mr. Justice Brewer, “The question of undue influence is one of peculiar character; it does-not arise until after the death of the one who alone fully knows the influences which have produced the instrument; it does not touch the' outward act, the form of the instrument, the signature, the acknowledgment; it enters the shadowy land of the mind in search of its condition and processes.” After stating in a general way what things may be inquired into, he further states: “This opens a broad field of inquiry and gives to such a contest over a will a wider scope of investigation | 1 | 1906–1906 |
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.