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 1990–2020 0 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. Coxgreen2 sentences2020The Legislature may amend the Rules of Procedure and Evidence adopted by the Supreme Court upon a vote of two-thirds of all members of both houses of 20190542-CA 2 2020 UT App 99 Pon v. Brewer the Legislature.”); see also Brown v. Cox, 2017 UT 3, ¶¶ 17, 20 , 387 P.3d 1040 (stating that the Utah Constitution’s “plain language” does not allow our legislature to “adopt rules of procedure and evidence” but only to “amend[] the rules the supreme court creates” and that any such amendment must be made “by supermajority” and must “contain a reference to the rule to be amended and a clear expression o 2020The Legislature may amend the Rules of Procedure and Evidence adopted by the Supreme Court upon a vote of two-thirds of all members of both houses of 20190542-CA 2 2020 UT App 99 Pon v. Brewer the Legislature.”); see also Brown v. Cox, 2017 UT 3, ¶¶ 17, 20 , 387 P.3d 1040 (stating that the Utah Constitution’s “plain language” does not allow our legislature to “adopt rules of procedure and evidence” but only to “amend[] the rules the supreme court creates” and that any such amendment must be made “by supermajority” and must “contain a reference to the rule to be amended and a clear expression o | 1 | 5 |
State v. Joshua Michael Mosesgreen1 sentence2020Its purpose is to enlighten the jury and to help the jurors remember 20180759-CA 15 2020 UT App 168 State v. Wall and interpret the evidence.” State v. Moses, 332 P.3d 767, 780 (Idaho 2014) (quotation simplified). | 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. Wall
green
1 sentence2020Its purpose is to enlighten the jury and to help the jurors remember 20180759-CA 15 2020 UT App 168 State v. Wall and interpret the evidence.” State v. Moses, 332 P.3d 767, 780 (Idaho 2014) (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Pon v. Brewer
green
1 sentence2020The Legislature may amend the Rules of Procedure and Evidence adopted by the Supreme Court upon a vote of two-thirds of all members of both houses of 20190542-CA 2 2020 UT App 99 Pon v. Brewer the Legislature.”); see also Brown v. Cox, 2017 UT 3, ¶¶ 17, 20 , 387 P.3d 1040 (stating that the Utah Constitution’s “plain language” does not allow our legislature to “adopt rules of procedure and evidence” but only to “amend[] the rules the supreme court creates” and that any such amendment must be made “by supermajority” and must “contain a reference to the rule to be amended and a clear expression o | 1 | 2020–2020 |
La Buy v. Howes Leather Co.
green
2 sentences1990Class counsel cite La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 , 77 S.Ct. 309 , 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957), as support for their contention that the issue of attorney fees does not present an exceptional condition within the meaning of rule 53. 1990Class counsel cite La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 , 77 S.Ct. 309 , 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957), as support for their contention that the issue of attorney fees does not present an exceptional condition within the meaning of rule 53. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.