7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berkshires, L.L.C. v. Sykesgreen2 sentences2010See Berkshires, LLC v. Sykes, 2005 UT App 536, ¶ 20 , 127 P.3d 1243 . [7] I disagree with the dissent that Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U.S. 110 , 111 S.Ct. 1723 , 114 L.Ed.2d 173 (1991), a death penalty case, is an instructive case for the issue on appeal. 2010See Berkshires, LLC v. Sykes, 2005 UT App 536, ¶ 20 , 127 P.3d 1243 . [7] I disagree with the dissent that Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U.S. 110 , 111 S.Ct. 1723 , 114 L.Ed.2d 173 (1991), a death penalty case, is an instructive case for the issue on appeal. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bullockgreen2 sentences1991“For example, if trial counsel’s actions amounted to an active, as opposed to a passive, waiver of an objection, we may decline to consider the claim of plain error.” State v. Bullock, 791 P.2d 155, 158 (Utah 1989) (citations omitted) (supreme court does not reach the issue of plain error in child sexual abuse case, concluding counsel failed to object as part of trial strategy), cert. denied by Bullock v. Utah, — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 3270 , 111 L.Ed.2d 780 (1990). 1991"For example, if trial counsel's actions amounted to an active, as opposed to a passive, waiver of an objection, we may decline to consider the claim of plain error." State v. Bullock, 791 P.2d 155, 158 (Utah 1989) (citations omitted) (supreme court does not reach the issue of plain error in child sexual abuse case, concluding counsel failed to object as part of trial strategy), cert. denied by Bullock v. Utah, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 3270 , 111 L.Ed.2d 780 (1990). | 1 | 2 |
Lankford v. Idahogreen2 sentences2010See Berkshires, LLC v. Sykes, 2005 UT App 536, ¶ 20 , 127 P.3d 1243 . [7] I disagree with the dissent that Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U.S. 110 , 111 S.Ct. 1723 , 114 L.Ed.2d 173 (1991), a death penalty case, is an instructive case for the issue on appeal. 2010See Berkshires, LLC v. Sykes, 2005 UT App 536, ¶ 20 , 127 P.3d 1243 . [7] I disagree with the dissent that Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U.S. 110 , 111 S.Ct. 1723 , 114 L.Ed.2d 173 (1991), a death penalty case, is an instructive case for the issue on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Olsengreen1 sentence2006First, he must establish that “an error did in fact occur.” State v. Olsen, 860 P.2d 332, 334 (Utah 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cramgreen2 sentences2006See Cram, 2002 UT 37, ¶ 9 , 46 P.3d 230 . 2 Because King has failed to allege any exceptional circumstances, we limit our analysis to the issue of plain error. ¶ 21 To prevail under plain error review, a defendant must demonstrate three elements. 2006See Cram, 2002 UT 37, ¶ 9 , 46 P.3d 230 . 2 Because King has failed to allege any exceptional circumstances, we limit our analysis to the issue of plain error. ¶ 21 To prevail under plain error review, a defendant must demonstrate three elements. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Weavergreen2 sentences2005See State v. Weaver, 2005 UT 49, ¶ 19 , 122 P.3d 566 ; Coleman v. Stevens, 2000 UT 98, ¶ 9 , 17 P.3d 1122 . ¶ 21 Even if the issue were properly raised, we would conclude that the trial court did not commit plain error. 2005See State v. Weaver, 2005 UT 49, ¶ 19 , 122 P.3d 566 ; Coleman v. Stevens, 2000 UT 98, ¶ 9 , 17 P.3d 1122 . ¶ 21 Even if the issue were properly raised, we would conclude that the trial court did not commit plain error. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Phathammavonggreen1 sentence1995Defendant did not raise the issue of plain error or exceptional circumstances until the reply brief. " '[Uhe rule is well settled that the court will not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief.’ ” State v. Phathammavong, 860 P.2d 1001, 1004 (Utah App.1993) (quoting White v. Kent Medical Ctr. | 1 | 1 |
White v. Kent Medical Center, Inc.green2 sentences1995Inc., 61 Wash.App. 163 , 810 P.2d 4, 8 (1991)); Utah R.App.P. 24(c). 1995Inc., 61 Wash.App. 163 , 810 P.2d 4, 8 (1991)); Utah R.App.P. 24(c). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Butterfieldgreen2 sentences1991See also State v. Butterfield, 784 P.2d 153 (Utah 1989). 1991See also State v. Butterfield, 784 P.2d 153 (Utah 1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coleman Ex Rel. Schefski v. Stevens
green
2 sentences2005See State v. Weaver, 2005 UT 49, ¶ 19 , 122 P.3d 566 ; Coleman v. Stevens, 2000 UT 98, ¶ 9 , 17 P.3d 1122 . ¶ 21 Even if the issue were properly raised, we would conclude that the trial court did not commit plain error. 2005See State v. Weaver, 2005 UT 49, ¶ 19 , 122 P.3d 566 ; Coleman v. Stevens, 2000 UT 98, ¶ 9 , 17 P.3d 1122 . ¶ 21 Even if the issue were properly raised, we would conclude that the trial court did not commit plain error. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Parker v. Dugger
green
2 sentences1991“For example, if trial counsel’s actions amounted to an active, as opposed to a passive, waiver of an objection, we may decline to consider the claim of plain error.” State v. Bullock, 791 P.2d 155, 158 (Utah 1989) (citations omitted) (supreme court does not reach the issue of plain error in child sexual abuse case, concluding counsel failed to object as part of trial strategy), cert. denied by Bullock v. Utah, — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 3270 , 111 L.Ed.2d 780 (1990). 1991"For example, if trial counsel's actions amounted to an active, as opposed to a passive, waiver of an objection, we may decline to consider the claim of plain error." State v. Bullock, 791 P.2d 155, 158 (Utah 1989) (citations omitted) (supreme court does not reach the issue of plain error in child sexual abuse case, concluding counsel failed to object as part of trial strategy), cert. denied by Bullock v. Utah, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 3270 , 111 L.Ed.2d 780 (1990). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.