7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2023 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. Shicklesgreen2 sentences2017The term ―objective‖ thus aids—rather than hinders—a proper understanding of the analysis required by the statute. 2 I see a parallel between the majority opinion here and that in State v. Shickles, 760 P.2d 291, 295 (Utah 1988). 2017The term “objective” thus aids—rather than hinders—a proper understanding of the analysis required by the statute. 2 I see a parallel between the majority opinion here and that in State v. Shickles, 760 P.2d 291, 295 (Utah 1988). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Nelson-Waggonergreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59, ¶¶ 22-25 , 6 P.3d 1120 ; State v. Marchet, 2009 UT App 262, ¶¶ 31, 39 , 219 P.3d 75 ; see also State v. Verde, 2012 UT 60, ¶ 53 , 296 P.3d 673 ("Probability reasoning is also the best understanding of our analysis in State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59 , 6 P.3d 1120 ."). 2015See, e.g., State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59, ¶¶ 22-25 , 6 P.3d 1120 ; State v. Marchet, 2009 UT App 262, ¶¶ 31, 39 , 219 P.3d 75 ; see also State v. Verde, 2012 UT 60, ¶ 53 , 296 P.3d 673 ("Probability reasoning is also the best understanding of our analysis in State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59 , 6 P.3d 1120 ."). | 1 | 2 |
Kyllo v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017See Kyllo v. United States , 533 U.S. 27 , 34-35, 121 S.Ct. 2038 , 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001) (Scalia, J., for the majority) (concluding that the original meaning of a Fourth Amendment "search" encompasses the use of a device by the government that "is not in general public use," to obtain information "regarding the interior of [a] home" that would previously have been unknowable without "physical 'intrusion into a constitutionally protected area' " (citation omitted)). ¶ 157 The Fourth Amendment example helps to focus the question presented in this case. 2017See Kyllo v. United States , 533 U.S. 27 , 34-35, 121 S.Ct. 2038 , 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001) (Scalia, J., for the majority) (concluding that the original meaning of a Fourth Amendment "search" encompasses the use of a device by the government that "is not in general public use," to obtain information "regarding the interior of [a] home" that would previously have been unknowable without "physical 'intrusion into a constitutionally protected area' " (citation omitted)). ¶ 157 The Fourth Amendment example helps to focus the question presented in this case. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Verdegreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59, ¶¶ 22-25 , 6 P.3d 1120 ; State v. Marchet, 2009 UT App 262, ¶¶ 31, 39 , 219 P.3d 75 ; see also State v. Verde, 2012 UT 60, ¶ 53 , 296 P.3d 673 ("Probability reasoning is also the best understanding of our analysis in State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59 , 6 P.3d 1120 ."). 2015See, e.g., State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59, ¶¶ 22-25 , 6 P.3d 1120 ; State v. Marchet, 2009 UT App 262, ¶¶ 31, 39 , 219 P.3d 75 ; see also State v. Verde, 2012 UT 60, ¶ 53 , 296 P.3d 673 ("Probability reasoning is also the best understanding of our analysis in State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59 , 6 P.3d 1120 ."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Marchetgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59, ¶¶ 22-25 , 6 P.3d 1120 ; State v. Marchet, 2009 UT App 262, ¶¶ 31, 39 , 219 P.3d 75 ; see also State v. Verde, 2012 UT 60, ¶ 53 , 296 P.3d 673 ("Probability reasoning is also the best understanding of our analysis in State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59 , 6 P.3d 1120 ."). 2015See, e.g., State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59, ¶¶ 22-25 , 6 P.3d 1120 ; State v. Marchet, 2009 UT App 262, ¶¶ 31, 39 , 219 P.3d 75 ; see also State v. Verde, 2012 UT 60, ¶ 53 , 296 P.3d 673 ("Probability reasoning is also the best understanding of our analysis in State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59 , 6 P.3d 1120 ."). | 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. Bozarth
green
2 sentences2023Id. ¶24 Similarly, in State v. Bozarth, 2021 UT App 117 , 501 P.3d 116 , this court found that the defendant had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, despite the trial court not conducting a proper Frampton colloquy, because the record clearly demonstrated the defendant’s understanding of his waiver. 2023Id. ¶24 Similarly, in State v. Bozarth, 2021 UT App 117 , 501 P.3d 116 , this court found that the defendant had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, despite the trial court not conducting a proper Frampton colloquy, because the record clearly demonstrated the defendant’s understanding of his waiver. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Patton
green
1 sentence2023Id. ¶24 Similarly, in State v. Bozarth, 2021 UT App 117 , 501 P.3d 116 , this court found that the defendant had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, despite the trial court not conducting a proper Frampton colloquy, because the record clearly demonstrated the defendant’s understanding of his waiver. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Solem v. Helm
red
1 sentence2014Accordingly, while we take guidance from the Supreme Court’s proportionality jurisprudence, we do so with the understanding that our analysis is necessarily different. ¶ 40 In Solem, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a South Dakota recidivism statute that imposed a sentence of LWOP on a defendant who had written a “no account” check for $100, a class 5 felony under South Dakota law. 463 U.S. at 280–81 & n.5. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Bradley
green
1 sentence2012In the court's view, the defendant's fabrication "theory [was] diminished by [the uncharged conduct evidence] because it is more difficult to believe that [two] mothers were motivated to, and were successful in, convincing their children to fabricate the allegations of sexual abuse." Id. 53 Probability reasoning is also the best understanding of our analysis in State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59 , 6 P.3d 1120 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.