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 2003–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Copelandgreen2 sentences2013To support his contention, Swogger relies on the Utah Supreme Court's analysis in State v. Copeland, 765 P.2d 1266 (Utah 1988), which says, "Before sentencing, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine the defendant's present mental state." Id. at 1270 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2013To support his contention, Swogger relies on the Utah Supreme Court's analysis in State v. Copeland, 765 P.2d 1266 (Utah 1988), which says, "Before sentencing, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine the defendant's present mental state." Id. at 1270 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Couchgreen2 sentences2013Cf. State v. Couch, 635 P.2d 89, 95 (Utah 1981) ("The critical fact is that the jury has signi-Fed its lack of understanding of the meaning of a word it must apply in performing its function." (emphasis added)). 117 The Utah Supreme Court's analysis in State v. Couch is instructive on this point. 2013Cf. State v. Couch, 635 P.2d 89, 95 (Utah 1981) (“The critical fact is that the jury has signified its lack of understanding of the meaning of a word it must apply in performing its function.” (emphasis added)). ¶117 The Utah Supreme Court’s analysis in State v. Couch is instructive on this point. | 1 | 1 |
Uhrhahn Construction & Design, Inc. v. Hopkinsgreen2 sentences2012See Uhrhahn, 2008 UT App 41, ¶ 35 , 179 P.3d 808 . 2012See Uhrhahn, 2008 UT App 41, ¶ 35 , 179 P.3d 808 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Valdezgreen2 sentences2006See State v. Valdez, 2004 UT App 214, ¶ 9 , 95 P.3d 291 ("In State v. Harrison, the Utah Supreme Court applied rule 18’s good cause provision to review an untimely Batson challenge."). 2006See State v. Valdez, 2004 UT App 214, ¶ 9 , 95 P.3d 291 ("In State v. Harrison, the Utah Supreme Court applied rule 18’s good cause provision to review an untimely Batson challenge."). | 1 | 1 |
Salt Lake County v. Carlstongreen1 sentence2004After trial, the only remedy is setting aside the conviction. *296 Id. at 656 (citations omitted); see also People v. Holder, 153 Ill.App.3d 884 , 106 Ill.Dec. 700 , 506 N.E.2d 407, 408 (1987) (stating waiver rule enforced “so as not to allow a defendant to object to that which he has acquiesced in” throughout trial). ¶ 9 Furthermore, the State argues, this rule is consistent with Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 18(c)(2), which provides “[a] challenge to an individual juror may be made only before the jury is sworn ... except the court may, for good cause, permit it to be made after the juror | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harrisongreen1 sentence2004See 805 P.2d 769, 776 (Utah 1991). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Holdergreen2 sentences2004After trial, the only remedy is setting aside the conviction. *296 Id. at 656 (citations omitted); see also People v. Holder, 153 Ill.App.3d 884 , 106 Ill.Dec. 700 , 506 N.E.2d 407, 408 (1987) (stating waiver rule enforced “so as not to allow a defendant to object to that which he has acquiesced in” throughout trial). ¶ 9 Furthermore, the State argues, this rule is consistent with Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 18(c)(2), which provides “[a] challenge to an individual juror may be made only before the jury is sworn ... except the court may, for good cause, permit it to be made after the juror 2004After trial, the only remedy is setting aside the conviction. *296 Id. at 656 (citations omitted); see also People v. Holder, 153 Ill.App.3d 884 , 106 Ill.Dec. 700 , 506 N.E.2d 407, 408 (1987) (stating waiver rule enforced “so as not to allow a defendant to object to that which he has acquiesced in” throughout trial). ¶ 9 Furthermore, the State argues, this rule is consistent with Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 18(c)(2), which provides “[a] challenge to an individual juror may be made only before the jury is sworn ... except the court may, for good cause, permit it to be made after the juror | 1 | 1 |
Little v. Utah State Division of Family Servicesgreen2 sentences2003Little v. Utah State Div. of Family Servs., 667 P.2d 49, 51 (Utah 1983). ¶ 20 The Utah Supreme Court's analysis in Keegan v. State, 896 P.2d 618 (Utah 1995), is instructive on this point. 2003Little v. Utah State Div. of Family Servs., 667 P.2d 49, 51 (Utah 1983). 'I 20 The Utah Supreme Court's analysis in Keegan v. State, 896 P.2d 618 (Utah 1995), is instructive on this point. | 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. Taylor
green
1 sentence2017In other words, this section purports to extend this court’s original jurisdiction to include multi-county election contests. ¶13 Brown encourages us to take “a liberal view of the Legislature’s power to grant Supreme Court jurisdiction” and cites State v. Taylor for support. 664 P.2d 439 (Utah 1983). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. One Lot of Personal Property
green
2 sentences2012In reaching this decision, we relied on the Utah Supreme Court's analysis in State v. One Lot of Personal Property, 2004 UT 36 , 90 P.3d 639 , in which the court declared the defendant the successful party entitled to attorney fees after the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its forfeiture claim, see id. 1%18-19. 2012In reaching this decision, we relied on the Utah Supreme Court's analysis in State v. One Lot of Personal Property, 2004 UT 36 , 90 P.3d 639 , in which the court declared the defendant the successful party entitled to attorney fees after the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its forfeiture claim, see id. 1%18-19. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Keegan v. State
green
2 sentences2003Little v. Utah State Div. of Family Servs., 667 P.2d 49, 51 (Utah 1983). ¶ 20 The Utah Supreme Court's analysis in Keegan v. State, 896 P.2d 618 (Utah 1995), is instructive on this point. 2003Little v. Utah State Div. of Family Servs., 667 P.2d 49, 51 (Utah 1983). 'I 20 The Utah Supreme Court's analysis in Keegan v. State, 896 P.2d 618 (Utah 1995), is instructive on this point. | 1 | 2003–2003 |