7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Division of Water Rights of the Department of Natural Resourcesgreen1 sentence2021And while the right to vote is sacrosanct, it does not include the right to elect an unqualified candidate.60 So, to ―preserve the democratic choice‖ of most voters, Grayeyes would need to demonstrate that he is qualified to hold _____________________________________________________________ 59 Supra ¶ 35; see UTAH CODE § 20A-4-403(1) (―[A] registered voter shall contest the right of any person declared elected to any office by filing a verified written complaint with the district court of the county in which he resides within 40 days after the canvass.‖). 60 See UTAH CODE § 20A-4-402(1)(b) (in | 1 | 1 |
Wallingford v. Moab Citygreen1 sentence2020See generally id. ¶7 The litigation (as well as changing economic conditions) delayed the Project for several years, and in the interim, Developer determined, based on updated market analysis, that modifications to the Project’s master plan would be beneficial. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Verdegreen1 sentence1998See State v. Taylor, 818 P.2d 561, 568 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (“Even when evidence is found to be improperly admitted, reversal is only required where admission of the evidence amounted to prejudicial error”). “‘Harmless’ errors are ‘errors which, although properly preserved below and presented on appeal, are sufficiently inconsequential that we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.’ ” State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 240 (Utah 1992) (quoting State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 120 (Utah 1989)); see also Utah R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hamiltongreen1 sentence1998See State v. Taylor, 818 P.2d 561, 568 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (“Even when evidence is found to be improperly admitted, reversal is only required where admission of the evidence amounted to prejudicial error”). “‘Harmless’ errors are ‘errors which, although properly preserved below and presented on appeal, are sufficiently inconsequential that we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.’ ” State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 240 (Utah 1992) (quoting State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 120 (Utah 1989)); see also Utah R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen1 sentence1998See State v. Taylor, 818 P.2d 561, 568 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (“Even when evidence is found to be improperly admitted, reversal is only required where admission of the evidence amounted to prejudicial error”). “‘Harmless’ errors are ‘errors which, although properly preserved below and presented on appeal, are sufficiently inconsequential that we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.’ ” State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 240 (Utah 1992) (quoting State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 120 (Utah 1989)); see also Utah R. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brigham Young University v. Tremco Consultants, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Brigham Young Univ. v. Tremco Consultants, Inc., 2005 UT 19 , ¶ 46 n.7, 110 P.3d 678 . “[A] petition for extraordinary writ filed with the appellate court provides an adequate remedy in light of the appellate court’s obligation to give due regard to principles of due process.” Utah Down Syndrome Found., Inc. v. Utah Down Syndrome Ass’n, 2012 UT 86, ¶ 22 , 293 P.3d 241 . 2013Brigham Young Univ. v. Tremco Consultants, Inc., 2005 UT 19 , ¶ 46 n.7, 110 P.3d 678 . “[A] petition for extraordinary writ filed with the appellate court provides an adequate remedy in light of the appellate court’s obligation to give due regard to principles of due process.” Utah Down Syndrome Found., Inc. v. Utah Down Syndrome Ass’n, 2012 UT 86, ¶ 22 , 293 P.3d 241 . | 3 | 2013–2013 |
Utah Down Syndrome Foundation, Inc. v. Utah Down Syndrome Ass'n
green
2 sentences2013Brigham Young Univ. v. Tremco Consultants, Inc., 2005 UT 19 , ¶ 46 n.7, 110 P.3d 678 . “[A] petition for extraordinary writ filed with the appellate court provides an adequate remedy in light of the appellate court’s obligation to give due regard to principles of due process.” Utah Down Syndrome Found., Inc. v. Utah Down Syndrome Ass’n, 2012 UT 86, ¶ 22 , 293 P.3d 241 . 2013Brigham Young Univ. v. Tremco Consultants, Inc., 2005 UT 19 , ¶ 46 n.7, 110 P.3d 678 . “[A] petition for extraordinary writ filed with the appellate court provides an adequate remedy in light of the appellate court’s obligation to give due regard to principles of due process.” Utah Down Syndrome Found., Inc. v. Utah Down Syndrome Ass’n, 2012 UT 86, ¶ 22 , 293 P.3d 241 . | 3 | 2013–2013 |
Hurley v. Town of Bingham
green
2 sentences1981We followed an earlier decision of this Court, Hurley v. Bingham, 63 Utah 589 , 228 P. 213 (1924), and refused to make an exception to the statute even though the child was under legal disability. 1981We followed an earlier decision of this Court, Hurley v. Bingham, 63 Utah 589 , 228 P. 213 (1924), and refused to make an exception to the statute even though the child was under legal disability. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.