51 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 11 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. Dunngreen2 sentences2018Finally, Defendant argues that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. ¶ 19 Where Defendant's arguments rest on a claim of plain error, we require that he demonstrate: "(i) [a]n error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) 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 confidence in the verdict is undermined." State v. Dunn , 850 P.2d 1201 , 1208-09 (Utah 1993). ¶ 20 "The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that we review 2017To succeed on a claim of plain error, a defendant must establish that “(i) [a]n error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful.” State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1208 (Utah 1993). ¶69 Martinez-Castellanos contends that, “[w]hile the court should be commended for its part in recognizing and calling for post-trial proceedings to address ineffective assistance, it erred when it failed to appoint conflict counsel to represent [him] in a meaningful way.” Rather, “the court simply appointed an attorney as amicus to address one distinct issue for | 10 | 13 |
State v. Bullockgreen2 sentences2013In other words, "if trial counsel's actions amounted to an active, as opposed to a passive, waiver of an objection, we may decline to consider the claim of plain error." Id. ¶ 23 As discussed in the preceding section, that is precisely what occurred here. 2012See State v. Hall, 946 P.2d 712, 716 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (stating that Utah appellate courts will decline to consider a claim of plain error if defense counsel made a "'conscious decision to refrain from objecting'" or " 'led the trial court into error " (quoting State v. Bullock, 791 P.2d 155, 158 (Utah 1989))). | 6 | 8 |
State v. Holgategreen2 sentences2018To succeed on a claim of plain error, a defendant "must establish harmful error that should have been obvious to the trial court." Id. (citing State v. Holgate , 2000 UT 74 , ¶ 13, 10 P.3d 346 ). 2018To succeed on a claim of plain error, a defendant "must establish harmful error that should have been obvious to the trial court." Id. (citing State v. Holgate , 2000 UT 74 , ¶ 13, 10 P.3d 346 ). | 2 | 3 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2013To establish ineffective assistance, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and prejudicial "to the degree that but for counsel's deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different." Id. 19 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (explaining that "[a] reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence" in the verdict). 2013To establish ineffective assistance, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and prejudicial "to the degree that but for counsel's deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different." Id. 19 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (explaining that "[a] reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence" in the verdict). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Lowgreen2 sentences2013See State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 20 , 192 P.3d 867 (requiring the defendant to show an obvious error to support a claim of plain error). 2013See State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 20 , 192 P.3d 867 (requiring the defendant to show an obvious error to support a claim of plain error). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Snydergreen2 sentences2012Additionally, because the trial court ruled on this ineffectiveness argument in the rule 23B hearing, “the issues raised present mixed questions of law and fact.” State v. Snyder, 860 P.2d 351, 354 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 698 (1984)). 2012Additionally, because the trial court ruled on this ineffectiveness argument in the rule 28B hearing, "the issues raised present mixed questions of law and fact." State v. Snyder, 860 P.2d 351, 354 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 698 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Poppgreen2 sentences2024And to succeed on a claim of plain error, Mayorga “must establish that (i) an error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful.” State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 35 , 453 P.3d 657 (quotation simplified). 2024And to succeed on a claim of plain error, Mayorga “must establish that (i) an error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful.” State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 35 , 453 P.3d 657 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bondgreen2 sentences2021“To prevail on a claim of plain error,” a defendant must show that “(i) an error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the [district] court; and (iii) the error is harmful.” State v. Bedell, 2014 UT 1, ¶ 20 , 322 P.3d 697 (cleaned up). ¶17 The merger doctrine, as codified in Utah’s merger statute, is designed “to protect criminal defendants from being twice punished for committing a single act that may violate more than one criminal statute.” State v. Bond, 2015 UT 88, ¶ 65 , 361 P.3d 104 (cleaned up); see also Utah Code Ann. § 76-1 - 402(1) (LexisNexis 2017). 2021“To prevail on a claim of plain error,” a defendant must show that “(i) an error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the [district] court; and (iii) the error is harmful.” State v. Bedell, 2014 UT 1, ¶ 20 , 322 P.3d 697 (cleaned up). ¶17 The merger doctrine, as codified in Utah’s merger statute, is designed “to protect criminal defendants from being twice punished for committing a single act that may violate more than one criminal statute.” State v. Bond, 2015 UT 88, ¶ 65 , 361 P.3d 104 (cleaned up); see also Utah Code Ann. § 76-1 - 402(1) (LexisNexis 2017). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Rossgreen2 sentences2004See State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29, 35-36 (Utah 1989) (rejecting a claim of plain error where a dispositive appellate case had not yet been decided); see also State v. Ross, 951 P.2d 236, 239 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (stating “error is not plain where there is no settled appellate law to guide the trial court”). ¶ 17 In this context and on these facts, we find that any error committed by the trial court was not obvious at the time the court denied Dean’s motion to withdraw. 2002"Utah courts have repeatedly held that a trial court's error is not plain where there is no settled appellate law to guide the trial court." Id. at 239 ; see also State v. Braun, 787 P.2d 1336, 1341-42 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (rejecting a claim of plain error where "`the trial court did not have the benefit of [a later] appellate decision'" (citation omitted) (alteration in original)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Eldredgegreen2 sentences2004See State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29, 35-36 (Utah 1989) (rejecting a claim of plain error where a dispositive appellate case had not yet been decided); see also State v. Ross, 951 P.2d 236, 239 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (stating “error is not plain where there is no settled appellate law to guide the trial court”). ¶ 17 In this context and on these facts, we find that any error committed by the trial court was not obvious at the time the court denied Dean’s motion to withdraw. 1994Eldredge, 773 P.2d at 36 n. 12. | 1 | 2 |
Parker v. Duggergreen2 sentences1991“For example, if trial counsel’s actions amounted to an active, as opposed to a passive, waiver of an objection, we may decline to consider the claim of plain error.” State v. Bullock, 791 P.2d 155, 158 (Utah 1989) (citations omitted) (supreme court does not reach the issue of plain error in child sexual abuse case, concluding counsel failed to object as part of trial strategy), cert. denied by Bullock v. Utah, — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 3270 , 111 L.Ed.2d 780 (1990). 1991"For example, if trial counsel's actions amounted to an active, as opposed to a passive, waiver of an objection, we may decline to consider the claim of plain error." State v. Bullock, 791 P.2d 155, 158 (Utah 1989) (citations omitted) (supreme court does not reach the issue of plain error in child sexual abuse case, concluding counsel failed to object as part of trial strategy), cert. denied by Bullock v. Utah, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 3270 , 111 L.Ed.2d 780 (1990). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Corrygreen2 sentences2025See State v. Corry, 2024 UT App 142, ¶ 17 , 558 P.3d 128 . 2025See State v. Corry, 2024 UT App 142, ¶ 17 , 558 P.3d 128 . | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Henflinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McNeilgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Alfatlawigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Verdegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Maasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Braungreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Garciagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Marvingreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gibbonsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Endsley v. Younggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Butterfieldgreen | 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. Boyd
green
2 sentences2013To prevail on a claim of plain error, Patterson must show that an error occurred at trial; "that the error should have been obvious to the trial court[;] and that the error is harmful, ie., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant, or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined." State v. Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 21 , 25 P.3d 985 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2013To prevail on a claim of plain error, Patterson must show that an error occurred at trial; "that the error should have been obvious to the trial court[;] and that the error is harmful, ie., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant, or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined." State v. Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 21 , 25 P.3d 985 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 3 | 2012–2013 |
State v. Tarnawiecki
green
2 sentences2002See State v. Garcia, 2001 UT App 19, ¶ 6 , 18 P.3d 1123 . " 'To succeed on a claim of plain error, a defendant has the burden of showing (N[aln error exists; () the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful.'" State v. Tarnawiecki, 2000 UT App 186, ¶ 11 , 5 P.3d 1222 (citations and internal quotations omitted) (alteration in original). 2002See State v. Garcia, 2001 UT App 19, ¶ 6 , 18 P.3d 1123 . " 'To succeed on a claim of plain error, a defendant has the burden of showing (N[aln error exists; () the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful.'" State v. Tarnawiecki, 2000 UT App 186, ¶ 11 , 5 P.3d 1222 (citations and internal quotations omitted) (alteration in original). | 3 | 2002–2004 |
State v. Dew
green
2 sentences2026“Because a claim of plain error . . . involves no lower court ruling, we decide the claim in the first instance as a matter of law.” State v. Dew, 2025 UT App 22, ¶ 28 , 566 P.3d 53 , cert. denied, 568 P.3d 264 (Utah 2025). 20230210-CA 9 2026 UT App 53 State v. Taylor ANALYSIS ¶14 Taylor makes two assertions of plain error, one based on Mother’s testimony regarding his character and one based on the special verdict form. 2026“Because a claim of plain error . . . involves no lower court ruling, we decide the claim in the first instance as a matter of law.” State v. Dew, 2025 UT App 22, ¶ 28 , 566 P.3d 53 , cert. denied, 568 P.3d 264 (Utah 2025). 20230210-CA 9 2026 UT App 53 State v. Taylor ANALYSIS ¶14 Taylor makes two assertions of plain error, one based on Mother’s testimony regarding his character and one based on the special verdict form. | 2 | 2025–2026 |
In re S.T...
green
2 sentences2023Therefore, “we (continued…) 20220635-CA 10 2023 UT App 144 In re R.G. succeed on a claim of plain error, Father must show that “(1) an error exists; (2) the error should have been obvious to the juvenile court; and (3) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome.” In re S.T., 2022 UT App 130, ¶ 14 , 521 P.3d 887 (quotation simplified). 2022To succeed on a claim of plain error, Mother must show that “(1) an error exists; (2) the error should have been obvious to the [juvenile] court; and (3) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome.” See In re J.A.L., 2022 UT 12, ¶ 12 , 506 P.3d 606 (quotation simplified). 20220029-CA 6 2022 UT App 130 In re S.T. ¶15 Second, Mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in determining that terminating her parental rights was in the best interest of the Children. | 2 | 2022–2023 |
State v. Bedell
green
2 sentences2021“To prevail on a claim of plain error,” a defendant must show that “(i) an error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the [district] court; and (iii) the error is harmful.” State v. Bedell, 2014 UT 1, ¶ 20 , 322 P.3d 697 (cleaned up). ¶17 The merger doctrine, as codified in Utah’s merger statute, is designed “to protect criminal defendants from being twice punished for committing a single act that may violate more than one criminal statute.” State v. Bond, 2015 UT 88, ¶ 65 , 361 P.3d 104 (cleaned up); see also Utah Code Ann. § 76-1 - 402(1) (LexisNexis 2017). 2021“To prevail on a claim of plain error,” a defendant must show that “(i) an error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the [district] court; and (iii) the error is harmful.” State v. Bedell, 2014 UT 1, ¶ 20 , 322 P.3d 697 (cleaned up). ¶17 The merger doctrine, as codified in Utah’s merger statute, is designed “to protect criminal defendants from being twice punished for committing a single act that may violate more than one criminal statute.” State v. Bond, 2015 UT 88, ¶ 65 , 361 P.3d 104 (cleaned up); see also Utah Code Ann. § 76-1 - 402(1) (LexisNexis 2017). | 2 | 2018–2021 |
State v. Reigelsperger
green
2 sentences2018Especially considering the district court's conclusions that the attorney who represented Newton at trial was not constitutionally ineffective on any claim Newton raised and the court did not find credible the testimony of Newton's father. 5 A surveillance video of the fast food restaurant showed that Newton and Victim entered the restaurant around 3:00 a.m., that Victim was seen using her cell phone, and that Victim and Newton left together at around 3:09 a.m. 6 To the extent Newton argues that we should review this issue under the rubrics of plain error and manifest injustice, those argument 2018Especially considering the district court's conclusions that the attorney who represented Newton at trial was not constitutionally ineffective on any claim Newton raised and the court did not find credible the testimony of Newton's father. 5 A surveillance video of the fast food restaurant showed that Newton and Victim entered the restaurant around 3:00 a.m., that Victim was seen using her cell phone, and that Victim and Newton left together at around 3:09 a.m. 6 To the extent Newton argues that we should review this issue under the rubrics of plain error and manifest injustice, those argument | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Dean
green
2 sentences2017See State v. Bond, 2015 UT 88, ¶ 63 , 361 P.3d 104 (rejecting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that if trial counsel had made the motion at issue, it would have been futile); State v. Dean, 2004 UT 63, ¶ 21 , 95 P.3d 276 (rejecting a claim of plain error because “the law in this area was not plainly settled so as to have adequately guided the trial court” at the time the alleged error occurred). 2017See State v. Bond, 2015 UT 88, ¶ 63 , 361 P.3d 104 (rejecting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that if trial counsel had made the motion at issue, it would have been futile); State v. Dean, 2004 UT 63, ¶ 21 , 95 P.3d 276 (rejecting a claim of plain error because “the law in this area was not plainly settled so as to have adequately guided the trial court” at the time the alleged error occurred). | 2 | 2017–2018 |
State v. Hare
neutral
2 sentences2017Thus, we conclude that her specific arguments regarding the court’s alimony determinations have not been preserved for appeal, see id., and we review them for plain error. ¶ 39 “To prevail on a claim of plain error, the appellant must show obvious, prejudicial error.” State v. Hare, 2015 UT App 179, ¶ 9 , 355 P.3d 1071 , We conclude that the court’s equalization analysis constituted plain error and remand for further proceedings. 2017Thus, we conclude that her specific arguments regarding the court’s alimony determinations have not been preserved for appeal, see id., and we review them for plain error. ¶ 39 “To prevail on a claim of plain error, the appellant must show obvious, prejudicial error.” State v. Hare, 2015 UT App 179, ¶ 9 , 355 P.3d 1071 , We conclude that the court’s equalization analysis constituted plain error and remand for further proceedings. | 2 | 2016–2017 |
State v. Hittle
green
2 sentences2002To succeed on a claim of plain error, a defendant has the burden of showing (i)[a]n error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted). 2002To succeed on a claim of plain error, a defendant has the burden of showing (i)[a]n error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful." Id. (quotations and citations omitted). | 2 | 2002–2004 |
State v. Skinner
green
1 sentence2026Where, as here, the alleged error is the failure to sua sponte disregard witness testimony as inherently improbable, to prevail on a claim of plain error, the defendant must show that the testimony “was so obviously and fundamentally faulty that the trial court should have stepped in and excluded that testimony from the equation without specifically being asked to do so.” Id. ¶26 The proper test to determine whether testimony is “inherently improbable” is “whether the testimony could support a conviction or whether reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant co | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2026“Under the plain error standard of review, a defendant must demonstrate that (i) an error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the [trial] court; and (iii) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant.” State v. Johnson, 2023 UT App 145, ¶ 22 , 540 P.3d 744 (quotation simplified). 2026“Under the plain error standard of review, a defendant must demonstrate that (i) an error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the [trial] court; and (iii) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant.” State v. Johnson, 2023 UT App 145, ¶ 22 , 540 P.3d 744 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Jok
green
2 sentences2026Where, as here, the alleged error is the failure to sua sponte disregard witness testimony as inherently improbable, to prevail on a claim of plain error, the defendant must show that the testimony “was so obviously and fundamentally faulty that the trial court should have stepped in and excluded that testimony from the equation without specifically being asked to do so.” Id. ¶26 The proper test to determine whether testimony is “inherently improbable” is “whether the testimony could support a conviction or whether reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant co 2026Where, as here, the alleged error is the failure to sua sponte disregard witness testimony as inherently improbable, to prevail on a claim of plain error, the defendant must show that the testimony “was so obviously and fundamentally faulty that the trial court should have stepped in and excluded that testimony from the equation without specifically being asked to do so.” Id. ¶26 The proper test to determine whether testimony is “inherently improbable” is “whether the testimony could support a conviction or whether reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant co | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10840911
green
1 sentence2026“Because a claim of plain error . . . involves no lower court ruling, we decide the claim in the first instance as a matter of law.” State v. Dew, 2025 UT App 22, ¶ 28 , 566 P.3d 53 , cert. denied, 568 P.3d 264 (Utah 2025). 20230210-CA 9 2026 UT App 53 State v. Taylor ANALYSIS ¶14 Taylor makes two assertions of plain error, one based on Mother’s testimony regarding his character and one based on the special verdict form. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Samora
green
2 sentences2025State v. Samora, 2022 UT App 7, ¶ 16 , 504 P.3d 195 ; accord State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 19 , 453 P.3d 657 . ¶6 Jakeman next asserts that Subsection (5) is unconstitutional as applied to his case because the CPOs “resulted in the de facto termination of [his] parental rights without due process.” Because this issue was not preserved, we again review it under the plain error doctrine. 2025State v. Samora, 2022 UT App 7, ¶ 16 , 504 P.3d 195 ; accord State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 19 , 453 P.3d 657 . ¶6 Jakeman next asserts that Subsection (5) is unconstitutional as applied to his case because the CPOs “resulted in the de facto termination of [his] parental rights without due process.” Because this issue was not preserved, we again review it under the plain error doctrine. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Norton
green
1 sentence2024“The prejudice analysis is the same for claims of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel.” State v. Norton, 2021 UT 2 , ¶ 101, 481 P.3d 445 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Rammel
green
1 sentence2024Failure to meet any of these requirements is fatal to a claim of plain error.” State v. Winter, 2024 UT App 98, ¶ 17 , 554 P.3d 355 (cleaned up), cert. denied, Oct. 10, 2024 (No. 20240977). ¶20 Garcia-Cardiel claims that State Expert’s statement about “some research that suggests that 60 to 80 percent of all abuse is not [reported] at all or . . . not reported until adulthood” resembles the inadmissible probability evidence in State v. Rammel, 721 P.2d 498 (Utah 1986), and State v. Iorg, 801 P.2d 938 (Utah Ct. App. 1990). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Winter
green
2 sentences2024Failure to meet any of these requirements is fatal to a claim of plain error.” State v. Winter, 2024 UT App 98, ¶ 17 , 554 P.3d 355 (cleaned up), cert. denied, Oct. 10, 2024 (No. 20240977). ¶20 Garcia-Cardiel claims that State Expert’s statement about “some research that suggests that 60 to 80 percent of all abuse is not [reported] at all or . . . not reported until adulthood” resembles the inadmissible probability evidence in State v. Rammel, 721 P.2d 498 (Utah 1986), and State v. Iorg, 801 P.2d 938 (Utah Ct. App. 1990). 2024Failure to meet any of these requirements is fatal to a claim of plain error.” State v. Winter, 2024 UT App 98, ¶ 17 , 554 P.3d 355 (cleaned up), cert. denied, Oct. 10, 2024 (No. 20240977). ¶20 Garcia-Cardiel claims that State Expert’s statement about “some research that suggests that 60 to 80 percent of all abuse is not [reported] at all or . . . not reported until adulthood” resembles the inadmissible probability evidence in State v. Rammel, 721 P.2d 498 (Utah 1986), and State v. Iorg, 801 P.2d 938 (Utah Ct. App. 1990). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Iorg
green
1 sentence2024Failure to meet any of these requirements is fatal to a claim of plain error.” State v. Winter, 2024 UT App 98, ¶ 17 , 554 P.3d 355 (cleaned up), cert. denied, Oct. 10, 2024 (No. 20240977). ¶20 Garcia-Cardiel claims that State Expert’s statement about “some research that suggests that 60 to 80 percent of all abuse is not [reported] at all or . . . not reported until adulthood” resembles the inadmissible probability evidence in State v. Rammel, 721 P.2d 498 (Utah 1986), and State v. Iorg, 801 P.2d 938 (Utah Ct. App. 1990). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In re R.G. neutral | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| In re J.L... green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Corona green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Valdovinos green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Heywood green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Angilau green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Salt Lake City v. Carrera green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Dickman Family Properties, Inc. v. White green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Harris green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. King green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Sellers green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Ross red | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Cruz green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Ostler green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.