7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 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. Rosa-Regreen2 sentences2011See, eg., State v. Rosa-Re, 2008 UT 53, ¶¶ 13-14 , 190 P.3d 1259 (challenge to the State's use of peremptory challenges); State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, f 21 , 167 P.3d 1046 (constitutional challenge to sentence of life without parole); State v. King, 2010 UT App 396 , T1 49, 51 & n. 13, 248 P.8d 984 (right of confrontation); State v. Johnson, 2008 UT App 5 , 1 22, 178 P.3d 915 (attorney-client privilege); see also Utah R.Crim. 2011See, eg., State v. Rosa-Re, 2008 UT 53, ¶¶ 13-14 , 190 P.3d 1259 (challenge to the State's use of peremptory challenges); State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, f 21 , 167 P.3d 1046 (constitutional challenge to sentence of life without parole); State v. King, 2010 UT App 396 , T1 49, 51 & n. 13, 248 P.8d 984 (right of confrontation); State v. Johnson, 2008 UT App 5 , 1 22, 178 P.3d 915 (attorney-client privilege); see also Utah R.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Linkgreen2 sentences2001Thus, although at least one state mandates a warning like that required in McPherson, see People v. Link, 291 Ill.App.3d 1064 , 226 Ill.Dec. 369 , 685 N.E.2d 624, 626 (1997), we, with the United States Supreme Court, decline to adopt McPherson's holding. *623 T16 Wanosik was given notice of the date and time of his sentencing. 2001Thus, although at least one state mandates a warning like that required in McPherson, see People v. Link, 291 Ill.App.3d 1064 , 226 Ill.Dec. 369 , 685 N.E.2d 624, 626 (1997), we, with the United States Supreme Court, decline to adopt McPherson's holding. *623 T16 Wanosik was given notice of the date and time of his sentencing. | 1 | 1 |
Crosby v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2001See 506 U.S. at 261-62 , 118 S.Ct. at 752. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Keangreen1 sentence1989See, e.g., Croft v. State, 513 So.2d 759, 761 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987) (per curiam); State v. Laurick, 222 N.J.Super. 636 , 537 A.2d 792 (1987); In re Kean, 520 A.2d 1271, 1278 (R.I.1987). | 1 | 1 |
Croft v. Stategreen2 sentences1989See, e.g., Croft v. State, 513 So.2d 759, 761 (Fla. Dist. 1989See, e.g., Croft v. State, 513 So.2d 759, 761 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987) (per curiam); State v. Laurick, 222 N.J.Super. 636 , 537 A.2d 792 (1987); In re Kean, 520 A.2d 1271, 1278 (R.I.1987). | 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. Rocco
green
1 sentence2025L–13–1223, L–13–1222, 2015 WL 1962850 , ¶ 36 (Ohio Ct. App. May 1, 2015) (cleaned up). 20220566-CA 5 2025 UT App 53 State v. Rocco putting people in a cemetery; and a track cover photo that included two males making hand signs overlaid with the letters “BW4L.” ¶11 Based on the evidence presented, the district court made findings of fact and concluded the following: • Rocco understood his probation agreement and was aware of the conditions. • The Snapchat photo “constituted a knowing violation of Condition A of the Gang Conditions.” • The photos on Rocco’s Facebook and SoundCloud accounts “cons | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2011See, eg., State v. Rosa-Re, 2008 UT 53, ¶¶ 13-14 , 190 P.3d 1259 (challenge to the State's use of peremptory challenges); State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, f 21 , 167 P.3d 1046 (constitutional challenge to sentence of life without parole); State v. King, 2010 UT App 396 , T1 49, 51 & n. 13, 248 P.8d 984 (right of confrontation); State v. Johnson, 2008 UT App 5 , 1 22, 178 P.3d 915 (attorney-client privilege); see also Utah R.Crim. 2011See, eg., State v. Rosa-Re, 2008 UT 53, ¶¶ 13-14 , 190 P.3d 1259 (challenge to the State's use of peremptory challenges); State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, f 21 , 167 P.3d 1046 (constitutional challenge to sentence of life without parole); State v. King, 2010 UT App 396 , T1 49, 51 & n. 13, 248 P.8d 984 (right of confrontation); State v. Johnson, 2008 UT App 5 , 1 22, 178 P.3d 915 (attorney-client privilege); see also Utah R.Crim. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. King
green
1 sentence2011See, eg., State v. Rosa-Re, 2008 UT 53, ¶¶ 13-14 , 190 P.3d 1259 (challenge to the State's use of peremptory challenges); State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, f 21 , 167 P.3d 1046 (constitutional challenge to sentence of life without parole); State v. King, 2010 UT App 396 , T1 49, 51 & n. 13, 248 P.8d 984 (right of confrontation); State v. Johnson, 2008 UT App 5 , 1 22, 178 P.3d 915 (attorney-client privilege); see also Utah R.Crim. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Rhinehart
green
2 sentences2011See, eg., State v. Rosa-Re, 2008 UT 53, ¶¶ 13-14 , 190 P.3d 1259 (challenge to the State's use of peremptory challenges); State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, f 21 , 167 P.3d 1046 (constitutional challenge to sentence of life without parole); State v. King, 2010 UT App 396 , T1 49, 51 & n. 13, 248 P.8d 984 (right of confrontation); State v. Johnson, 2008 UT App 5 , 1 22, 178 P.3d 915 (attorney-client privilege); see also Utah R.Crim. 2011See, eg., State v. Rosa-Re, 2008 UT 53, ¶¶ 13-14 , 190 P.3d 1259 (challenge to the State's use of peremptory challenges); State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, f 21 , 167 P.3d 1046 (constitutional challenge to sentence of life without parole); State v. King, 2010 UT App 396 , T1 49, 51 & n. 13, 248 P.8d 984 (right of confrontation); State v. Johnson, 2008 UT App 5 , 1 22, 178 P.3d 915 (attorney-client privilege); see also Utah R.Crim. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Kinsman v. Kinsman
green
2 sentences2007Alternatively, the court "based [its affirmance] on a contract theory" and decided that because the husband "failed to perform [a material] condition precedent" upon which the wife's promise to waive alimony was premised, the alimony waiver stipulation was "no longer enforceable." Id. at 212-13 . ¶16 Here, Wife reads the court's language in Kinsman "declin[ing] to hold that a change of circumstances can overcome a knowing and specific waiver in a stipulation," id. at 212 , to mean that the court is divested of its continuing jurisdiction to modify alimony where there has been a specific and kn 2007Alternatively, the court "based [its affirmance] on a contract theory" and decided that because the husband "failed to perform [a material] condition precedent" upon which the wife's promise to waive alimony was premised, the alimony waiver stipulation was "no longer enforceable." Id. at 212-13 . ¶16 Here, Wife reads the court's language in Kinsman "declin[ing] to hold that a change of circumstances can overcome a knowing and specific waiver in a stipulation," id. at 212 , to mean that the court is divested of its continuing jurisdiction to modify alimony where there has been a specific and kn | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Triptow
green
1 sentence1996We stated in Triptow that when a defendant has offered evidence of a denial of right to counsel in the absence of a knowing waiver, “the presumption of regularity is rebutted and the burden shifts to the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was in fact represented or knowingly waived representation.” Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Laurick
green
2 sentences1989See, e.g., Croft v. State, 513 So.2d 759, 761 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987) (per curiam); State v. Laurick, 222 N.J.Super. 636 , 537 A.2d 792 (1987); In re Kean, 520 A.2d 1271, 1278 (R.I.1987). 1989See, e.g., Croft v. State, 513 So.2d 759, 761 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987) (per curiam); State v. Laurick, 222 N.J.Super. 636 , 537 A.2d 792 (1987); In re Kean, 520 A.2d 1271, 1278 (R.I.1987). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Moore
green
1 sentence1988Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); State v. Moore, 697 P.2d 233 (Utah 1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Edwards v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1988Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); State v. Moore, 697 P.2d 233 (Utah 1985). 1988Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); State v. Moore, 697 P.2d 233 (Utah 1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.