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 2005–2023 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. Pindergreen2 sentences2012See, eg., State v. Pinder, 2005 UT 15, ¶46 , 114 P.3d 551 . "[The purpose of the preservation rule is to ensure that the trial court is first given an opportunity to decide if a mistake has been made before appellate review becomes appropriate." Id. 2012See, eg., State v. Pinder, 2005 UT 15, ¶46 , 114 P.3d 551 . "[The purpose of the preservation rule is to ensure that the trial court is first given an opportunity to decide if a mistake has been made before appellate review becomes appropriate." Id. | 1 | 2 |
State v. McNeilgreen2 sentences2016"To properly preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue must be raised in the district court, Additionally, the issue must be specifically raised, in a timely manner, and must be supported by evidence and relevant legal authority." Id.; see also State v. McNeil, 2016 UT 3, ¶ 24 , 365 P.3d 699 . 'I 27 Meyer has not identified a point in the record where she presented this argument to the district court, See Utah R. 2016"To properly preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue must be raised in the district court, Additionally, the issue must be specifically raised, in a timely manner, and must be supported by evidence and relevant legal authority." Id.; see also State v. McNeil, 2016 UT 3, ¶ 24 , 365 P.3d 699 . 'I 27 Meyer has not identified a point in the record where she presented this argument to the district court, See Utah R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2005As we explained in State v. Johnson, 821 P.2d 1150, 1161 (Utah 1991), the purpose of the preservation rule is to ensure that the trial court is first given an opportunity to decide if a mistake has been made before appellate review becomes appropriate. 2005Although a new argument may be advanced when moving for a new trial, “the trial court may refuse to consider the merits of the argument ... because it may find the issue waived.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Donjuan v. McDermott
green
2 sentences2023Park Phases II, III & IV Owners Ass’n v. Shakespeare, 2016 UT 28, ¶ 13 , 379 P.3d 1218 (determining that “the district court’s decision to take up [a] question conclusively overcame any objection that the issue was not preserved for appeal”); Donjuan v. McDermott, 2011 UT 72, ¶ 20 , 266 P.3d 839 (“The purpose of the preservation requirement is to put the district court on notice of an issue and provide it with an opportunity to rule on it.”). 20210719-CA 8 2023 UT App 139 Beauty Lab and Laser v. Jelosek Turner, 2021 UT App 119, ¶ 36 , 500 P.3d 940 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 509 P.3d 768 (Utah 2023Park Phases II, III & IV Owners Ass’n v. Shakespeare, 2016 UT 28, ¶ 13 , 379 P.3d 1218 (determining that “the district court’s decision to take up [a] question conclusively overcame any objection that the issue was not preserved for appeal”); Donjuan v. McDermott, 2011 UT 72, ¶ 20 , 266 P.3d 839 (“The purpose of the preservation requirement is to put the district court on notice of an issue and provide it with an opportunity to rule on it.”). 20210719-CA 8 2023 UT App 139 Beauty Lab and Laser v. Jelosek Turner, 2021 UT App 119, ¶ 36 , 500 P.3d 940 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 509 P.3d 768 (Utah | 2 | 2016–2023 |
Dale K. Barker Co PC CPA Profit Sharing v. Turner
green
2 sentences2023Park Phases II, III & IV Owners Ass’n v. Shakespeare, 2016 UT 28, ¶ 13 , 379 P.3d 1218 (determining that “the district court’s decision to take up [a] question conclusively overcame any objection that the issue was not preserved for appeal”); Donjuan v. McDermott, 2011 UT 72, ¶ 20 , 266 P.3d 839 (“The purpose of the preservation requirement is to put the district court on notice of an issue and provide it with an opportunity to rule on it.”). 20210719-CA 8 2023 UT App 139 Beauty Lab and Laser v. Jelosek Turner, 2021 UT App 119, ¶ 36 , 500 P.3d 940 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 509 P.3d 768 (Utah 2023Park Phases II, III & IV Owners Ass’n v. Shakespeare, 2016 UT 28, ¶ 13 , 379 P.3d 1218 (determining that “the district court’s decision to take up [a] question conclusively overcame any objection that the issue was not preserved for appeal”); Donjuan v. McDermott, 2011 UT 72, ¶ 20 , 266 P.3d 839 (“The purpose of the preservation requirement is to put the district court on notice of an issue and provide it with an opportunity to rule on it.”). 20210719-CA 8 2023 UT App 139 Beauty Lab and Laser v. Jelosek Turner, 2021 UT App 119, ¶ 36 , 500 P.3d 940 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 509 P.3d 768 (Utah | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Archibeque
green
1 sentence2023Park Phases II, III & IV Owners Ass’n v. Shakespeare, 2016 UT 28, ¶ 13 , 379 P.3d 1218 (determining that “the district court’s decision to take up [a] question conclusively overcame any objection that the issue was not preserved for appeal”); Donjuan v. McDermott, 2011 UT 72, ¶ 20 , 266 P.3d 839 (“The purpose of the preservation requirement is to put the district court on notice of an issue and provide it with an opportunity to rule on it.”). 20210719-CA 8 2023 UT App 139 Beauty Lab and Laser v. Jelosek Turner, 2021 UT App 119, ¶ 36 , 500 P.3d 940 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 509 P.3d 768 (Utah | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Beauty Lab and Laser v. Jelosek
green
1 sentence2023Park Phases II, III & IV Owners Ass’n v. Shakespeare, 2016 UT 28, ¶ 13 , 379 P.3d 1218 (determining that “the district court’s decision to take up [a] question conclusively overcame any objection that the issue was not preserved for appeal”); Donjuan v. McDermott, 2011 UT 72, ¶ 20 , 266 P.3d 839 (“The purpose of the preservation requirement is to put the district court on notice of an issue and provide it with an opportunity to rule on it.”). 20210719-CA 8 2023 UT App 139 Beauty Lab and Laser v. Jelosek Turner, 2021 UT App 119, ¶ 36 , 500 P.3d 940 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 509 P.3d 768 (Utah | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Fort Pierce Industrial Park Phases II, III, & IV Owners Ass'n v. Shakespeare
green
2 sentences2023Park Phases II, III & IV Owners Ass’n v. Shakespeare, 2016 UT 28, ¶ 13 , 379 P.3d 1218 (determining that “the district court’s decision to take up [a] question conclusively overcame any objection that the issue was not preserved for appeal”); Donjuan v. McDermott, 2011 UT 72, ¶ 20 , 266 P.3d 839 (“The purpose of the preservation requirement is to put the district court on notice of an issue and provide it with an opportunity to rule on it.”). 20210719-CA 8 2023 UT App 139 Beauty Lab and Laser v. Jelosek Turner, 2021 UT App 119, ¶ 36 , 500 P.3d 940 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 509 P.3d 768 (Utah 2023Park Phases II, III & IV Owners Ass’n v. Shakespeare, 2016 UT 28, ¶ 13 , 379 P.3d 1218 (determining that “the district court’s decision to take up [a] question conclusively overcame any objection that the issue was not preserved for appeal”); Donjuan v. McDermott, 2011 UT 72, ¶ 20 , 266 P.3d 839 (“The purpose of the preservation requirement is to put the district court on notice of an issue and provide it with an opportunity to rule on it.”). 20210719-CA 8 2023 UT App 139 Beauty Lab and Laser v. Jelosek Turner, 2021 UT App 119, ¶ 36 , 500 P.3d 940 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 509 P.3d 768 (Utah | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Fire Ins Exchange v. Oltmanns
neutral
1 sentence2017We use the 2014 rules in place at the time the memoranda were filed. 36 Cite as: 2017 UT 81 DURHAM, J., concurring in part and in the result district court on notice of an issue and provide it with an opportunity to rule on it.” (citations omitted)). ¶75 I would affirm the court of appeals’ decision to uphold the district court’s grant of summary judgment, but do so on alternate grounds. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
O'DEA v. Olea
green
1 sentence2011Id. 121 Generally, the fact that a party is asserting constitutional claims does not excuse him from complying with the preservation rule. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.