7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Irwingreen1 sentence2012See State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 7-8 (Utah Ct.App.1996) (noting that the preservation rule "bar[s a party] from raising [an issue] for the first time on appeal" but that one exception to the preservation rule is the "concept of exceptional circumstances," which "is not so much a precise doctrine, which may be analyzed in terms of fixed elements, as it is a descriptive term used to memorialize an appellate court's judgment that even though an issue was not raised below and even though the plain error doctrine does not apply, unique procedural circumstances nonetheless permit consideration of the | 1 | 1 |
Ogden City Corp. v. Harmongreen2 sentences2006See Lunnen, 886 P.2d at 73 . { 28 In Ogden City Corp. v. Harmon, 2005 UT App 274 , 116 P.3d 973 , we explained that "Utah law has provided little guidance on the precise factors used to balance the proportionality of the punishment to the offense." Id. at 118. 2006See Lunnen, 886 P.2d at 73 . { 28 In Ogden City Corp. v. Harmon, 2005 UT App 274 , 116 P.3d 973 , we explained that "Utah law has provided little guidance on the precise factors used to balance the proportionality of the punishment to the offense." Id. at 118. | 1 | 1 |
Lunnen v. Utah Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence2006See Lunnen, 886 P.2d at 73 . { 28 In Ogden City Corp. v. Harmon, 2005 UT App 274 , 116 P.3d 973 , we explained that "Utah law has provided little guidance on the precise factors used to balance the proportionality of the punishment to the offense." Id. at 118. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dunngreen1 sentence1996See, e.g., Dunn, 850 P.2d at 1209 n. 3 (referring to “exceptional circumstances exception” as “ill-defined”). | 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. Thurman
green
2 sentences2015State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256, 1268 , 1270 n. 11 (Utah 1993). 2015State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256, 1268 , 1270 n.11 (Utah 1993). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Santosky v. Kramer
green
1 sentence2021In 1975, almost seven years before the U.S Supreme Court‘s decision in Santosky, this court first adopted the ―clear and convincing‖ standard for the termination of parental rights.18 Years later, the Utah _____________________________________________________________ 13 455 U.S. 745 , 769–70 (1982). 14 As we explain below, although the Santosky Court suggested it would be constitutionally permissible to raise the standard of proof, it also suggested that raising the standard to ―beyond a reasonable doubt‖ might be impractical. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Matter of Discharge of Jones
green
1 sentence2005Given the degree of deference afforded to the fire chiefs determination, the Commission may reverse the chiefs choice of discipline as unduly excessive only when the punishment is “clearly disproportionate” to the offense, In re Discharge of Jones, 720 P.2d at 1363 , and “ ‘exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality,’ ” McKesson Corp. v. Labor Comm’n, 2002 UT App 10, ¶ 11 , 41 P.3d 468 (citation omitted). ¶ 18 Utah law has provided little guidance on the precise factors used to balance the proportionality of the punishment to the offense. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
McKesson Corp. v. Labor Commission
green
2 sentences2005Given the degree of deference afforded to the fire chiefs determination, the Commission may reverse the chiefs choice of discipline as unduly excessive only when the punishment is “clearly disproportionate” to the offense, In re Discharge of Jones, 720 P.2d at 1363 , and “ ‘exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality,’ ” McKesson Corp. v. Labor Comm’n, 2002 UT App 10, ¶ 11 , 41 P.3d 468 (citation omitted). ¶ 18 Utah law has provided little guidance on the precise factors used to balance the proportionality of the punishment to the offense. 2005Given the degree of deference afforded to the fire chiefs determination, the Commission may reverse the chiefs choice of discipline as unduly excessive only when the punishment is “clearly disproportionate” to the offense, In re Discharge of Jones, 720 P.2d at 1363 , and “ ‘exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality,’ ” McKesson Corp. v. Labor Comm’n, 2002 UT App 10, ¶ 11 , 41 P.3d 468 (citation omitted). ¶ 18 Utah law has provided little guidance on the precise factors used to balance the proportionality of the punishment to the offense. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.