7 Utah opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2024 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 Z.C.W...green2 sentences2024See In re Z.C.W., 20230102-CA 20230103-CA 32 2024 UT App 47 In re K.J. 2021 UT App 98, ¶ 12 . 7 Moreover, we offer no specific instruction to the juvenile court as to whether, and to what extent, it must hold an evidentiary hearing on remand; we conclude only that the court must properly complete the required statutory analysis and that it “must—in some manner—consider and appropriately deal with proffered new evidence.” See id. ¶ 15. 2024See In re Z.C.W., 20230102-CA 20230103-CA 32 2024 UT App 47 In re K.J. 2021 UT App 98, ¶ 12 . 7 Moreover, we offer no specific instruction to the juvenile court as to whether, and to what extent, it must hold an evidentiary hearing on remand; we conclude only that the court must properly complete the required statutory analysis and that it “must—in some manner—consider and appropriately deal with proffered new evidence.” See id. ¶ 15. | 2 | 2 |
In re K.J...green2 sentences2024See In re Z.C.W., 20230102-CA 20230103-CA 32 2024 UT App 47 In re K.J. 2021 UT App 98, ¶ 12 . 7 Moreover, we offer no specific instruction to the juvenile court as to whether, and to what extent, it must hold an evidentiary hearing on remand; we conclude only that the court must properly complete the required statutory analysis and that it “must—in some manner—consider and appropriately deal with proffered new evidence.” See id. ¶ 15. 2024See In re Z.C.W., 20230102-CA 20230103-CA 32 2024 UT App 47 In re K.J. 2021 UT App 98, ¶ 12 . 7 Moreover, we offer no specific instruction to the juvenile court as to whether, and to what extent, it must hold an evidentiary hearing on remand; we conclude only that the court must properly complete the required statutory analysis and that it “must—in some manner—consider and appropriately deal with proffered new evidence.” See id. ¶ 15. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Samulgreen1 sentence2020“Instead, when reviewing a court’s sentencing decision against a challenge that it failed to consider the required statutory factors, we begin with the presumption that the court properly considered the factors.” Samul, 2018 UT App 177, ¶ 21 (quotation simplified). ¶24 This already-deferential standard of review becomes even tougher for a defendant who has failed to preserve the issue for our review. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Valdezgreen2 sentences2018See State v. Valdez , 2017 UT App 185 , ¶ 17, 405 P.3d 952 . ¶22 On this record, Samul fails to persuasively rebut this presumption. 2018See State v. Valdez , 2017 UT App 185 , ¶ 17, 405 P.3d 952 . ¶22 On this record, Samul fails to persuasively rebut this presumption. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Helmsgreen2 sentences2015See Helms, 2002 UT 12, ¶ 13 , 40 P.3d 626 . . 111 In State v. Helms, the Utah Supreme Court upheld a trial court's imposition of consecutive prison sentences, rejecting a defendant's argument that the court had not considered all of the required statutory factors. 2015See Helms, 2002 UT 12, ¶ 13 , 40 P.3d 626 . . 111 In State v. Helms, the Utah Supreme Court upheld a trial court's imposition of consecutive prison sentences, rejecting a defendant's argument that the court had not considered all of the required statutory factors. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Valdovinosgreen2 sentences2013See State v. Valdovinos, 2003 UT App 432, ¶ 14 , 82 P.3d 1167 ("An abuse of discretion results when the judge fails to consider all legally relevant factors...." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 2013See State v. Valdovinos, 2003 UT App 432, ¶ 14 , 82 P.3d 1167 ("An abuse of discretion results when the judge fails to consider all legally relevant factors...." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). | 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. Naves
green
1 sentence2020“To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must establish that (1) an error exists; (2) the error should have been obvious to the [district] court; and (3) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant, or phrased differently, our 20180343-CA 11 2020 UT App 156 State v. Naves confidence in the verdict is undermined.” State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5, ¶ 12 , 253 P.3d 1082 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Munguia
green
2 sentences2020“To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must establish that (1) an error exists; (2) the error should have been obvious to the [district] court; and (3) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant, or phrased differently, our 20180343-CA 11 2020 UT App 156 State v. Naves confidence in the verdict is undermined.” State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5, ¶ 12 , 253 P.3d 1082 (quotation simplified). 2020“To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must establish that (1) an error exists; (2) the error should have been obvious to the [district] court; and (3) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant, or phrased differently, our 20180343-CA 11 2020 UT App 156 State v. Naves confidence in the verdict is undermined.” State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5, ¶ 12 , 253 P.3d 1082 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Scott
neutral
2 sentences2015This is especially so given that "[the court is not required to give each factor equal weight." State v. Scott, 2008 UT App 68, ¶ 10 , 180 P.3d 774 . 2015This is especially so given that "[the court is not required to give each factor equal weight." State v. Scott, 2008 UT App 68, ¶ 10 , 180 P.3d 774 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bell v. Bell
green
2 sentences2009Thus, "if sufficient findings are not made, we must reverse unless the record is clear and uncontroverted such as to allow us to apply the [statutory] factors as a matter of law on appeal." Bell, 810 P.2d at 492 . €10 In this case, the trial court made only one finding regarding the required statutory factors: "As to the issue of alimony, the Court finds that [Husband] has demonstrated some need for alimony but has also inflated that need as demonstrated in his proposed future expenses. 2009Thus, "[i]f sufficient findings are not made, we must reverse unless the record is clear and uncontroverted such as to allow us to apply the [statutory] factors as a matter of law on appeal." Bell, 810 P.2d at 492 . ¶ 10 In this case, the trial court made only one finding regarding the required statutory factors: "As to the issue of alimony, the Court finds that [Husband] has demonstrated some need for alimony but has also inflated that need as demonstrated in his proposed future expenses. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Rehn v. Rehn
green
2 sentences2009The Court finds that [Wife] has the ability to pay alimony." This finding simply does not "include enough subsidiary facts to disclose the steps by which the ultimate conclusion [on each statutory factor] was reached." See Rehn, 1999 UT App 41, ¶ 6 , 974 P.2d 306 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2009The Court finds that [Wife] has the ability to pay alimony." This finding simply does not "include enough subsidiary facts to disclose the steps by which the ultimate conclusion [on each statutory factor] was reached." See Rehn, 1999 UT App 41, ¶ 6 , 974 P.2d 306 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.