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 1979–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brickeygreen2 sentences2022See id. (“If an additional or different offense is charged, the defendant has the right to a preliminary hearing on that offense . . . .”). 2004See id. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Morgangreen1 sentence2025Morgan concluded that a prosecutor was not forum shopping where “the second preliminary hearing was held before the same magistrate” and where there was no evidence of subjective intent to forum shop. 2001 UT 87, ¶ 25 (noting that, “unlike the prosecutor in Brickey,” the Morgan prosecutor did not “admit[] he would refile until obtaining a bindover”). | 1 | 1 |
Browning v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Atencio
green
2 sentences2005The State has provided no reason why this evidence could not have been produced at the original preliminary hearing, and we are not convinced that such dilatory preparation amounts to an innocent miscalculation. 5 ¶26 We are likewise unpersuaded that unpreparedness constitutes “other good cause.” In State v. Atencio, 2004 UT App 93 , 89 P.3d 191 , this court upheld the State’s decision to refile a charge after it had already been dismissed. 2005The State has provided no reason why this evidence could not have been produced at the original preliminary hearing, and we are not convinced that such dilatory preparation amounts to an innocent miscalculation. 5 ¶26 We are likewise unpersuaded that unpreparedness constitutes “other good cause.” In State v. Atencio, 2004 UT App 93 , 89 P.3d 191 , this court upheld the State’s decision to refile a charge after it had already been dismissed. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Morgan
neutral
2 sentences2001Defendants contended that a decision issued by the court of appeals in State v. Morgan, 2000 UT App. 48 , 997 P.2d 910 , effectively precluded interpreting good cause to include an innocent miscalculation of the quantum of evidence necessary to obtain a bindover. {11 The magistrate agreed with defendants and granted the motion to dismiss both counts of the information. 2001Defendants contended that a decision issued by the court of appeals in State v. Morgan, 2000 UT App. 48 , 997 P.2d 910 , effectively precluded interpreting good cause to include an innocent miscalculation of the quantum of evidence necessary to obtain a bindover. {11 The magistrate agreed with defendants and granted the motion to dismiss both counts of the information. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Heller v. New York
green
2 sentences1979The fact that a second preliminary hearing was held wherein the magistrate did view the films and rule upon the issue of obscenity is not indicative that an error had been made; rather, that subsequent preliminary hearing was ordered when defendant had failed to properly challenged the issue of obscenity. 15 . 413 U.S. 483 , 93 S.Ct. 2789 , 37 L.Ed.2d 745 (1973). 16 . 577 F.2d 308 (5th Cir. 1978). 17 . 1979The fact that a second preliminary hearing was held wherein the magistrate did view the films and rule upon the issue of obscenity is not indicative that an error had been made; rather, that subsequent preliminary hearing was ordered when defendant had failed to properly challenged the issue of obscenity. 15 . 413 U.S. 483 , 93 S.Ct. 2789 , 37 L.Ed.2d 745 (1973). 16 . 577 F.2d 308 (5th Cir. 1978). 17 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
United States v. George P. Echols
green
1 sentence1979The fact that a second preliminary hearing was held wherein the magistrate did view the films and rule upon the issue of obscenity is not indicative that an error had been made; rather, that subsequent preliminary hearing was ordered when defendant had failed to properly challenged the issue of obscenity. 15 . 413 U.S. 483 , 93 S.Ct. 2789 , 37 L.Ed.2d 745 (1973). 16 . 577 F.2d 308 (5th Cir. 1978). 17 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.