7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1953–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Bondurantgreen1 sentence2013See id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thurmangreen1 sentence2006In short, the policy of turning over custody of warrants and affidavits to the police without securing copies for court files is not within the purview of rule 4-205. {20 Finally, regardless of the statutory requirements, we conclude that the practice followed by the Fourth District Court is sufficiently troubling to warrant the imposition of this court's "inherent supervisory authority over all courts of this state." State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256, 1266 (Utah 1993); see also State v. Wareham, 772 P.2d 960, 965 (Utah 1989) (invoking supreme court's supervisory power to require bifurcation in | 1 | 1 |
In re Criminal Investigation, 7th District Court No. CS-1green1 sentence2006In short, the policy of turning over custody of warrants and affidavits to the police without securing copies for court files is not within the purview of rule 4-205. {20 Finally, regardless of the statutory requirements, we conclude that the practice followed by the Fourth District Court is sufficiently troubling to warrant the imposition of this court's "inherent supervisory authority over all courts of this state." State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256, 1266 (Utah 1993); see also State v. Wareham, 772 P.2d 960, 965 (Utah 1989) (invoking supreme court's supervisory power to require bifurcation in | 1 | 1 |
State v. Warehamgreen1 sentence2006In short, the policy of turning over custody of warrants and affidavits to the police without securing copies for court files is not within the purview of rule 4-205. {20 Finally, regardless of the statutory requirements, we conclude that the practice followed by the Fourth District Court is sufficiently troubling to warrant the imposition of this court's "inherent supervisory authority over all courts of this state." State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256, 1266 (Utah 1993); see also State v. Wareham, 772 P.2d 960, 965 (Utah 1989) (invoking supreme court's supervisory power to require bifurcation in | 1 | 1 |
Benson Ex Rel. Benson v. I.H.C. Hospitals, Inc.green2 sentences2005The Court in Benson clarified exactly what types of documents fall under the purview of the privilege, answering the question whether the care review privilege applied only to “documents prepared specifically to be submitted for review purposes or whether the privilege also includes documents that might or could be used in the review process.” Id. at 540 (emphasis in original). 2005The Supreme Court concluded that the privilege should be limited to only those “documents prepared specifically to be submitted for review purposes.” Id. (emphasis in original). | 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. Rallison
green
1 sentence2023R. 412(b)(3). 20200667-CA 7 2023 UT App 34 State v. Rallison ¶10 We first note that evidence of the cooks slapping each other’s buttocks—included in Rallison’s identification of item 12 but not the district court’s—is beyond the purview of rule 412 as it does not involve the alleged victims. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Nunez
green
1 sentence2021This is because “[t]he rule is permissive, not exclusive,” see id., and some evidence that falls under the purview of rule 15.5 may nevertheless appropriately be admitted pursuant to other rules of evidence and procedure, State v. Burke, 2011 UT App 168 , ¶ 52 n.13, 256 P.3d 1102 (reading Hoyt, 806 P.2d at 209 , as 20190317-CA 16 2021 UT App 86 State v. Nunez standing for the proposition “that rule 15.5 is not the exclusive method through which a child’s testimony may be admitted”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Hoyt
green
2 sentences2021This is because “[t]he rule is permissive, not exclusive,” see id., and some evidence that falls under the purview of rule 15.5 may nevertheless appropriately be admitted pursuant to other rules of evidence and procedure, State v. Burke, 2011 UT App 168 , ¶ 52 n.13, 256 P.3d 1102 (reading Hoyt, 806 P.2d at 209 , as 20190317-CA 16 2021 UT App 86 State v. Nunez standing for the proposition “that rule 15.5 is not the exclusive method through which a child’s testimony may be admitted”). 2021This is because “[t]he rule is permissive, not exclusive,” see id., and some evidence that falls under the purview of rule 15.5 may nevertheless appropriately be admitted pursuant to other rules of evidence and procedure, State v. Burke, 2011 UT App 168 , ¶ 52 n.13, 256 P.3d 1102 (reading Hoyt, 806 P.2d at 209 , as 20190317-CA 16 2021 UT App 86 State v. Nunez standing for the proposition “that rule 15.5 is not the exclusive method through which a child’s testimony may be admitted”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Burke
green
2 sentences2021This is because “[t]he rule is permissive, not exclusive,” see id., and some evidence that falls under the purview of rule 15.5 may nevertheless appropriately be admitted pursuant to other rules of evidence and procedure, State v. Burke, 2011 UT App 168 , ¶ 52 n.13, 256 P.3d 1102 (reading Hoyt, 806 P.2d at 209 , as 20190317-CA 16 2021 UT App 86 State v. Nunez standing for the proposition “that rule 15.5 is not the exclusive method through which a child’s testimony may be admitted”). 2021This is because “[t]he rule is permissive, not exclusive,” see id., and some evidence that falls under the purview of rule 15.5 may nevertheless appropriately be admitted pursuant to other rules of evidence and procedure, State v. Burke, 2011 UT App 168 , ¶ 52 n.13, 256 P.3d 1102 (reading Hoyt, 806 P.2d at 209 , as 20190317-CA 16 2021 UT App 86 State v. Nunez standing for the proposition “that rule 15.5 is not the exclusive method through which a child’s testimony may be admitted”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Alzaga
green
2 sentences2020Thus, as a threshold matter, rule 608 is inapplicable here because evidence the State presented involved convictions, a category that does not fall under the purview of rule 608. ¶13 “Rule 609 permits a party to attack a witness’s character for truthfulness using evidence of a criminal conviction.” State v. Alzaga, 2015 UT App 133, ¶ 32 , 352 P.3d 107 . 2020Thus, as a threshold matter, rule 608 is inapplicable here because evidence the State presented involved convictions, a category that does not fall under the purview of rule 608. ¶13 “Rule 609 permits a party to attack a witness’s character for truthfulness using evidence of a criminal conviction.” State v. Alzaga, 2015 UT App 133, ¶ 32 , 352 P.3d 107 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Hansen
green
1 sentence2020But we agree with the State that Hansen’s prior convictions were not used to show his character for truthfulness; rather, they were introduced only to 20180531-CA 6 2020 UT App 17 State v. Hansen cast doubt on the credibility of Hansen’s testimony that he presently did not use methamphetamine and that he did not know there was methamphetamine in his car. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
City of Fort Worth v. Wiggins
green
1 sentence1953It does not determine that the attractive nuisance doctrine would take the case beyond the purview of immunity. [8] In this case, the court did not consider the relationship of the doctrine of immunity inasmuch as there was no support for the contention of attractive nuisance. [9] For a discussion of the possible bases of this exception see Prosser on Torts. p. 1074, § 108. [1] Tex.Civ.App., 299 S.W. 468 , affirmed Tex.Com.App., 5 S.W.2d 761 . [2] Supra. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Wiggins v. City of Fort Worth
green
1 sentence1953It does not determine that the attractive nuisance doctrine would take the case beyond the purview of immunity. [8] In this case, the court did not consider the relationship of the doctrine of immunity inasmuch as there was no support for the contention of attractive nuisance. [9] For a discussion of the possible bases of this exception see Prosser on Torts. p. 1074, § 108. [1] Tex.Civ.App., 299 S.W. 468 , affirmed Tex.Com.App., 5 S.W.2d 761 . [2] Supra. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.