51 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2026 17 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. Irwingreen2 sentences2026To the seeming contrary, we have held that, when the exceptional circumstances doctrine applies, it “permit[s] consideration of the merits of the issue on appeal.” State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 8 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). 2017Father asserts that he “should be viewed as having established an ‘exceptional circumstance,’ for not raising this issue at trial in.that the statutory scheme does not allow him to do so” and that, “[i]f all deprivations of rights under the initial Petition are silenced by [the] filing of a Petition to Terminate, no argument can be made about the deprivations of those rights.” ¶28 “The exceptional circumstances concept serves as a safety device, to assure that manifest' injustice does' not result from the failure to consider an issue on appeal.” State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 8 (Utah Ct. App. 199 | 14 | 14 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2026Id. ¶¶ 24–27. ¶11 This court then granted certiorari to review “whether the majority of the panel of the court of appeals erred in its application of the exceptional circumstances doctrine to a case in which it acknowledged the error may have been invited and in which 4 Cite as: 2026 UT 6 Opinion of the Court [Johnson] did not argue ineffective assistance of counsel.” Johnson II, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 5 , 416 P.3d 443 (cleaned up). 2026Id. ¶¶ 24–27. ¶11 This court then granted certiorari to review “whether the majority of the panel of the court of appeals erred in its application of the exceptional circumstances doctrine to a case in which it acknowledged the error may have been invited and in which 4 Cite as: 2026 UT 6 Opinion of the Court [Johnson] did not argue ineffective assistance of counsel.” Johnson II, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 5 , 416 P.3d 443 (cleaned up). | 6 | 12 |
In re K.A.S.green2 sentences2017Clarification of Exceptional Circumstances ¶29 The exceptional circumstances doctrine is applied “sparingly, reserving it for the most unusual circumstances where our failure to consider an issue that was not properly preserved for appeal would have resulted in manifest injustice.” Adoption of K.A.S., 2016 UT 55, ¶ 19 , 390 P.3d 278 (citation omitted). 2017Father asserts that he “should be viewed as having established an ‘exceptional circumstance,’ for not raising this issue at trial in.that the statutory scheme does not allow him to do so” and that, “[i]f all deprivations of rights under the initial Petition are silenced by [the] filing of a Petition to Terminate, no argument can be made about the deprivations of those rights.” ¶28 “The exceptional circumstances concept serves as a safety device, to assure that manifest' injustice does' not result from the failure to consider an issue on appeal.” State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 8 (Utah Ct. App. 199 | 4 | 8 |
L.E.S. v. C.D.M.green2 sentences2017Clarification of Exceptional Circumstances ¶29 The exceptional circumstances doctrine is applied “sparingly, reserving it for the most unusual circumstances where our failure to consider an issue that was not properly preserved for appeal would have resulted in manifest injustice.” Adoption of K.A.S., 2016 UT 55, ¶ 19 , 390 P.3d 278 (citation omitted). 2017Father asserts that he “should be viewed as having established an ‘exceptional circumstance,’ for not raising this issue at trial in.that the statutory scheme does not allow him to do so” and that, “[i]f all deprivations of rights under the initial Petition are silenced by [the] filing of a Petition to Terminate, no argument can be made about the deprivations of those rights.” ¶28 “The exceptional circumstances concept serves as a safety device, to assure that manifest' injustice does' not result from the failure to consider an issue on appeal.” State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 8 (Utah Ct. App. 199 | 4 | 7 |
State v. Munguiagreen2 sentences2017“The prejudice analysis is the same under both a plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel framework.” State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5, ¶ 13 , 253 P.3d 1082 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶9 The exceptional circumstances doctrine allows the reviewing court to reach an unpreserved issue in cases involving “rare procedural anomalies.” See Munguia, 2011 UT 5, ¶ 11 , 253 P.3d 1082 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2017“The prejudice analysis is the same under both a plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel framework.” State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5, ¶ 13 , 253 P.3d 1082 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶9 The exceptional circumstances doctrine allows the reviewing court to reach an unpreserved issue in cases involving “rare procedural anomalies.” See Munguia, 2011 UT 5, ¶ 11 , 253 P.3d 1082 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2016See Lopez, 873 P.2d at 1134 n.2 (allowing "independent analysis” on state constitutional standard without deciding whether the issue was adequately preserved; concluding that such briefing was permitted because changes in federal constitutional law explained why the state issue may not have been raised below; but failing to give any content to the exceptional circumstances doctrine); Haston, 846 P.2d at 1277 (allowing appellant to assert that his conviction was "for a crime which is not recognized in Utah”; but without mentioning "exceptional circumstances,” much less defining it; and concludi 2016See Lopez, 873 P.2d at 1134 n.2 (allowing “independent analysis” on state constitutional standard without deciding whether the issue was adequately preserved; concluding that such briefing was permitted because changes in federal constitutional law explained why the state issue may not have been raised below; but failing to give any content to the exceptional circumstances doctrine); Haston, 846 P.2d at 1277 (allowing appellant to assert that his conviction was “for a crime which is not recognized in Utah”; but without mentioning “exceptional circumstances,” much less defining it; and concludi | 3 | 4 |
State v. Pullmangreen2 sentences2017At best, Mr. Johnson’s trial counsel inadvertently proposed an erroneous instruction and failed to detect the error and object to it. 18 But the exceptional circumstances exception “requires something much more exceptional than mere oversight by trial counsel in failing to object.” State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 11 (Utah Ct. App. 1996); see also State v. Pullman, 2013 UT App 168, ¶ 27 , 306 P.3d 827 (rejecting the exceptional circumstances exception because the “ordinary trial errors” raised by the defendant on appeal, such as instructional error and the improper admission of evidence, were not “ 2017At best, Mr. Johnson’s trial counsel inadvertently proposed an erroneous instruction and failed to detect the error and object to it. 18 But the exceptional circumstances exception “requires something much more exceptional than mere oversight by trial counsel in failing to object.” State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 11 (Utah Ct. App. 1996); see also State v. Pullman, 2013 UT App 168, ¶ 27 , 306 P.3d 827 (rejecting the exceptional circumstances exception because the “ordinary trial errors” raised by the defendant on appeal, such as instructional error and the improper admission of evidence, were not “ | 3 | 3 |
Salt Lake City v. Ohmsgreen2 sentences2017It is “used, sparingly, properly reserved for truly exceptional situations, for cases ... involving rare procedural anomalies.” Irwin, 924 P.2d at 11 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., Salt Lake City v. Ohms, 881 P.2d 844, 847 (Utah 1994) (concluding that exceptional circumstances existed because “the only way” to challenge the commissioner’s authority was to first consent to that authority, through waiver, effectively agreeing not to object to that authority at trial, and then to obtain judicial consideration. of the constitutionality of the commissioner’s author 2017It is “used sparingly, properly reserved for truly exceptional situations, for cases . . . involving rare procedural anomalies.” Irwin, 924 P.2d at 11 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., Salt Lake City v. Ohms, 881 P.2d 844, 847 (Utah 1994) (concluding that exceptional circumstances existed because “the only way” to challenge the commissioner’s authority was to first consent to that authority, through waiver, effectively agreeing not to object to that authority at trial, and then to obtain judicial consideration of the constitutionality of the commissioner’s author | 3 | 3 |
State v. Hastongreen2 sentences2016See Lopez, 873 P.2d at 1134 n.2 (allowing "independent analysis” on state constitutional standard without deciding whether the issue was adequately preserved; concluding that such briefing was permitted because changes in federal constitutional law explained why the state issue may not have been raised below; but failing to give any content to the exceptional circumstances doctrine); Haston, 846 P.2d at 1277 (allowing appellant to assert that his conviction was "for a crime which is not recognized in Utah”; but without mentioning "exceptional circumstances,” much less defining it; and concludi 2016See Lopez, 873 P.2d at 1134 n.2 (allowing “independent analysis” on state constitutional standard without deciding whether the issue was adequately preserved; concluding that such briefing was permitted because changes in federal constitutional law explained why the state issue may not have been raised below; but failing to give any content to the exceptional circumstances doctrine); Haston, 846 P.2d at 1277 (allowing appellant to assert that his conviction was “for a crime which is not recognized in Utah”; but without mentioning “exceptional circumstances,” much less defining it; and concludi | 3 | 3 |
State v. Gardinergreen2 sentences2016That follows from the fact that the doctrine has rarely taken hold as a firm holding of the court, see State v. Gardiner, 814 P.2d 568, 572 (Utah 1991) (noting that “this court is not bound by earlier dicta”), and from the unpredictability and unworkability of the doctrine, see Eldridge v. Johndrow, 2015 UT 21, ¶ 40 , 345 P.3d 553 (noting that “to determine whether a precedent has become firmly established,” the court first asks “how well it has worked in practice”). 2016That follows from the fact that the doctrine has rarely taken hold as a firm holding of the court, see State v. Gardiner, 814 P.2d 568, 572 (Utah 1991) (noting that “this court is not bound by earlier dicta”), and from the unpredictability and unworkability of the doctrine, see Eldridge v. Johndrow, 2015 UT 21, ¶ 40 , 345 P.3d 553 (noting that “to determine whether a precedent has become firmly established,” the court first asks “how well it has worked in practice”). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Holgategreen2 sentences2017Exceptional Circumstances ¶24 Utah appellate courts have characterized the exceptional circumstances exception as “ill-defined,” see Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 12 (citation omitted), and as an “[im]precise doctrine” that cannot “be analyzed in terms of fixed elements,” State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 8 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). 2017Exceptional Circumstances ¶24 Utah appellate courts have characterized the exceptional circumstances exception as “ill-defined,” see Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 12 (citation omitted), and as an “[im]precise doctrine” that cannot “be analyzed in terms of fixed elements,” State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 8 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). | 2 | 9 |
State v. Dunngreen2 sentences2016LEE, J., dissenting review (either a determination that the matter was preserved or that review is necessary under the doctrine of plain error). 7 29, ¶¶ 15–16, 23–24, 94 P.3d 186 (same); In re Schwenke, 2004 UT 17 , ¶ 34 & n.6, 89 P.3d 117 (same); State v. Lopez, 886 P.2d 1105, 1113 (Utah 1994) (same); Jolivet v. Cook, 784 P.2d 1148, 1151 (Utah 1989) (same); State v. Steggell, 660 P.2d 252, 254 (Utah 1983) (explaining that “[i]n the absence of exceptional circumstances, this [c]ourt has long refused to review matters raised for the first time on appeal,” and concluding that “[n]o exceptional 2015The exceptional circumstances doctrine "is used sparingly, properly reserved for truly exceptional situations ... involving 'rare procedural anomalies.'" State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 11 (Utah Ct. App.1996) (quoting Dunn, 850 P.2d at 1209 n. 3). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2025Under our current law, whether “a liberty interest is at stake is merely one factor . . . to be considered when determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.” Id. (cleaned up). 20220879-CA 4 2025 UT App 59 State v. Colwell “whether our failure to consider [the unpreserved issue] would result in manifest injustice,” and “judicial economy.” Id. (cleaned up). ¶8 In State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76 , 416 P.3d 443 , our supreme court explained that the question of when to apply the exceptional circumstances exception “require[s] case-by-case assessment.” Id. ¶ 38. 2016LEE, J., dissenting review (either a determination that the matter was preserved or that review is necessary under the doctrine of plain error). 7 29, ¶¶ 15–16, 23–24, 94 P.3d 186 (same); In re Schwenke, 2004 UT 17 , ¶ 34 & n.6, 89 P.3d 117 (same); State v. Lopez, 886 P.2d 1105, 1113 (Utah 1994) (same); Jolivet v. Cook, 784 P.2d 1148, 1151 (Utah 1989) (same); State v. Steggell, 660 P.2d 252, 254 (Utah 1983) (explaining that “[i]n the absence of exceptional circumstances, this [c]ourt has long refused to review matters raised for the first time on appeal,” and concluding that “[n]o exceptional | 2 | 3 |
State v. Kozlovgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Kozlov, 2012 UT App 114, ¶ 28 , 276 P.3d 1207 (explaining that an exceptional circumstances claim “presents a legal question that we review for correctness”). 2025See State v. Kozlov, 2012 UT App 114, ¶ 28 , 276 P.3d 1207 (explaining that an exceptional circumstances claim “presents a legal question that we review for correctness”). | 2 | 2 |
| Baumann v. Kroger Co.green | 2 | 2 |
| Jolivet v. Cookgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Verdegreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Clarkgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Archambeaugreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Nelson-Waggonergreen2 sentences2025They argue that “it is beyond the limits of reasonability to forbid in-person jury selection under the facts and circumstances here.” Specifically, this is “an unusual case involving an aggravated murder charge, with a jury trial scheduled to last a full month, and the boots on the ground—both parties and the trial judge—all __________________________________________________________ 14 The Parties also argue that to determine what “extraordinary circumstances” meant, the Presiding Judge “looked to case law addressing the exceptional circumstances exception to the appellate doctrine of preserva 2025They argue that “it is beyond the limits of reasonability to forbid in-person jury selection under the facts and circumstances here.” Specifically, this is “an unusual case involving an aggravated murder charge, with a jury trial scheduled to last a full month, and the boots on the ground—both parties and the trial judge—all __________________________________________________________ 14 The Parties also argue that to determine what “extraordinary circumstances” meant, the Presiding Judge “looked to case law addressing the exceptional circumstances exception to the appellate doctrine of preserva | 1 | 4 |
State v. Candedogreen2 sentences2012See State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 ("An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law."); State v. Candedo, 2008 UT App 4, ¶ 9 , 176 P.3d 459 (mem.) (determining as a matter of law whether the exceptional circumstances exception applied), aff'd, 2010 UT 32, ¶ 2 , 232 P.3d 1008 ; State v. Smit, 2004 UT App 222, ¶ 7 , 95 P.3d 1203 ("Plain error is a question of law reviewed for correctness."). ¶29 Defendant also claims that both his trial and post-trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to adequately investigate his 2012See State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 ("An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law."); State v. Candedo, 2008 UT App 4, ¶ 9 , 176 P.3d 459 (mem.) (determining as a matter of law whether the exceptional circumstances exception applied), aff'd, 2010 UT 32, ¶ 2 , 232 P.3d 1008 ; State v. Smit, 2004 UT App 222, ¶ 7 , 95 P.3d 1203 ("Plain error is a question of law reviewed for correctness."). ¶29 Defendant also claims that both his trial and post-trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to adequately investigate his | 1 | 4 |
State Ex Rel. Tmgreen2 sentences2018It is certainly possible, for example, that an intervening change of law might create exceptional circumstances that could justify addressing an issue uniquely affected by that intervening change, see, e.g., Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶¶ 31, 33 (observing that “a rare procedural anomaly” to establish the exceptional circumstances exception to preservation “exists where a change in law or the settled interpretation of law colors the failure to have raised an issue at trial” (quotation simplified)); In re T.M., 2003 UT App 191, ¶ 16 , 73 P.3d 959 (reaching the merits of an unpreserved issue based on a 2018It is certainly possible, for example, that an intervening change of law might create exceptional circumstances that could justify addressing an issue uniquely affected by that intervening change, see, e.g., Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶¶ 31, 33 (observing that “a rare procedural anomaly” to establish the exceptional circumstances exception to preservation “exists where a change in law or the settled interpretation of law colors the failure to have raised an issue at trial” (quotation simplified)); In re T.M., 2003 UT App 191, ¶ 16 , 73 P.3d 959 (reaching the merits of an unpreserved issue based on a | 1 | 3 |
| In re X.C.H.green | 1 | 2 |
| Provo City v. Iviegreen | 1 | 2 |
| cluster 10851781green | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sanchezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| G.H. v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Webbgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Steggellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Piercegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ledbettergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cartergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Alfatlawigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Olsengreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ramirezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Powellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| O'NEAL v. Division of Family Servicesgreen | 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. Low
green
2 sentences2023See Sanchez, 2018 UT 31, ¶ 30 ; Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 17 . ¶ 56 Centeno alternatively asserts that, to the extent we deem these theories unpreserved, we should consider them under the exceptional circumstances exception to the preservation rule. ¶ 57 It is well established that we will not address the merits of an unpreserved issue absent a showing that an exception to the preservation rule applies. 2016LEE, J., dissenting review (either a determination that the matter was preserved or that review is necessary under the doctrine of plain error). 7 29, ¶¶ 15–16, 23–24, 94 P.3d 186 (same); In re Schwenke, 2004 UT 17 , ¶ 34 & n.6, 89 P.3d 117 (same); State v. Lopez, 886 P.2d 1105, 1113 (Utah 1994) (same); Jolivet v. Cook, 784 P.2d 1148, 1151 (Utah 1989) (same); State v. Steggell, 660 P.2d 252, 254 (Utah 1983) (explaining that “[i]n the absence of exceptional circumstances, this [c]ourt has long refused to review matters raised for the first time on appeal,” and concluding that “[n]o exceptional | 4 | 2016–2023 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2017Johnson, 2014 UT App 161 , ¶¶ 16–19, 30–31. ¶5 This court granted a petition for certiorari review of the court of appeals’ opinion. 2017Johnson, 2014 UT App 161 , ¶¶ 16–19, 30–31. ¶5 This court granted a petition for certiorari review of the court of appeals’ opinion. | 4 | 2016–2017 |
State v. Breckenridge
green
2 sentences2017They understood Robison as an exceptional circumstances case because of its reliance on State v. Breckenridge, 688 P.2d 440 (Utah 1983), which they believed was also an exceptional circumstances case. 2017They understood Robison as an exceptional circumstances case because of its reliance on State v. Breckenridge, 688 P.2d 440 (Utah 1983), which they believed was also an exceptional circumstances case. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
State v. McNeil
green
2 sentences2017We agreed to answer "[w]hether the majority of the panel of the court of appeals erred in its application of the exceptional circumstances doctrine to a case in which it acknowledged the error may have been invited and in which Respondent did not argue ineffective assistance of counsel." STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶6 We review the court of appeals' application of the preservation rule for correctness. *448 State v. McNeil , 2016 UT 3 , ¶ 14, 365 P.3d 699 . 2017We agreed to answer "[w]hether the majority of the panel of the court of appeals erred in its application of the exceptional circumstances doctrine to a case in which it acknowledged the error may have been invited and in which Respondent did not argue ineffective assistance of counsel." STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶6 We review the court of appeals' application of the preservation rule for correctness. *448 State v. McNeil , 2016 UT 3 , ¶ 14, 365 P.3d 699 . | 3 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Robison
green
2 sentences2017A majority of the panel reached this conclusion by determining that our decision in State v. Robison, 2006 UT 65 , 147 P.3d 448 , expanded the doctrine of exceptional circumstances. 2017A majority of the panel reached this conclusion by determining that our decision in State v. Robison, 2006 UT 65 , 147 P.3d 448 , expanded the doctrine of exceptional circumstances. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Smith v. Smith
green
2 sentences2017“An issue is inadequately briefed when the overall analysis of the issue is so lacking as to shift the burden of research and argument to the reviewing court.” Smith v. Smith, 1999 UT App 370, ¶ 8 , 995 P.2d 14 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶30 Here, Father makes two references to the exceptional-circumstances doctrine, stating that he “should be viewed as having established an ‘exceptional circumstance,’ ” and that “this Court should consider the requirement of exceptional circumstance[s] in presenting this issue for the first time on appeal.” However, he fails to cite any 2017“An issue is inadequately briefed when the overall analysis of the issue is so lacking as to shift the burden of research and argument to the reviewing court.” Smith v. Smith, 1999 UT App 370, ¶ 8 , 995 P.2d 14 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶30 Here, Father makes two references to the exceptional-circumstances doctrine, stating that he “should be viewed as having established an ‘exceptional circumstance,’ ” and that “this Court should consider the requirement of exceptional circumstance[s] in presenting this issue for the first time on appeal.” However, he fails to cite any | 3 | 2017–2017 |
H.U.F. v. W.P.W.
green
2 sentences2016When an issue is not properly preserved, we will address the issue for the first time on appeal “only if (1) the appellant establishes that the district court committed ‘plain error,’ (2) ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, or (3) in some situations, if the appellant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to preserve the issue.” State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 19 , 192 P.3d 867 (citation omitted); see also State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5, ¶¶ 10-13 , 253 P.3d 1082 ; H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 2009 UT 10 , ¶ 25 n.12, 203 P.3d 943 ; State v. Lee, 2006 UT 5, ¶ 24 , 128 P.3d 1179 . 2016When an issue is not properly preserved, we will address the issue for the first time on appeal “only if (1) the appellant establishes that the district court committed ‘plain error,’ (2) ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, or (3) in some situations, if the appellant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to preserve the issue.” State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 19 , 192 P.3d 867 (citation omitted); see also State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5 , ¶¶ 10–13, 253 P.3d 1082 ; H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 2009 UT 10 , ¶ 25 n.12, 203 P.3d 943 ; State v. Lee, 2006 UT 5, ¶ 24 , 128 P.3d 1179 . | 3 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Lee
green
2 sentences2016When an issue is not properly preserved, we will address the issue for the first time on appeal “only if (1) the appellant establishes that the district court committed ‘plain error,’ (2) ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, or (3) in some situations, if the appellant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to preserve the issue.” State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 19 , 192 P.3d 867 (citation omitted); see also State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5, ¶¶ 10-13 , 253 P.3d 1082 ; H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 2009 UT 10 , ¶ 25 n.12, 203 P.3d 943 ; State v. Lee, 2006 UT 5, ¶ 24 , 128 P.3d 1179 . 2016When an issue is not properly preserved, we will address the issue for the first time on appeal “only if (1) the appellant establishes that the district court committed ‘plain error,’ (2) ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, or (3) in some situations, if the appellant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to preserve the issue.” State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 19 , 192 P.3d 867 (citation omitted); see also State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5, ¶¶ 10-13 , 253 P.3d 1082 ; H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 2009 UT 10 , ¶ 25 n.12, 203 P.3d 943 ; State v. Lee, 2006 UT 5, ¶ 24 , 128 P.3d 1179 . | 3 | 2016–2016 |
Huf v. Wpw
green
2 sentences2016When an issue is not properly preserved, we will address the issue for the first time on appeal “only if (1) the appellant establishes that the district court committed ‘plain error,’ (2) ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, or (3) in some situations, if the appellant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to preserve the issue.” State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 19 , 192 P.3d 867 (citation omitted); see also State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5, ¶¶ 10-13 , 253 P.3d 1082 ; H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 2009 UT 10 , ¶ 25 n.12, 203 P.3d 943 ; State v. Lee, 2006 UT 5, ¶ 24 , 128 P.3d 1179 . 2016When an issue is not properly preserved, we will address the issue for the first time on appeal “only if (1) the appellant establishes that the district court committed ‘plain error,’ (2) ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, or (3) in some situations, if the appellant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to preserve the issue.” State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 19 , 192 P.3d 867 (citation omitted); see also State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5 , ¶¶ 10–13, 253 P.3d 1082 ; H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 2009 UT 10 , ¶ 25 n.12, 203 P.3d 943 ; State v. Lee, 2006 UT 5, ¶ 24 , 128 P.3d 1179 . | 3 | 2016–2016 |
Tschaggeny v. Milbank Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2016Co., 2007 UT 37, ¶ 15 , 163 P.3d 615 . ¶21 We conclude that these circumstances constitute one of those “rare procedural anomalies” that qualify for the exceptional circumstances exception to the preservation rule. 2 When a party is appointed counsel who refuses to make an argument for the right to counsel when that right is challenged, and the party is barred from making that argument, and the party then is denied counsel and subsequently would have to make a sophisticated constitutional argument for the right to counsel with no technical vehicle for making such an argument, exceptional circu 2016Co., 2007 UT 37, ¶ 15 , 163 P.3d 615 . ¶21 We conclude that these circumstances constitute one of those “rare procedural anomalies” that qualify for the exceptional circumstances exception to the preservation rule. 2 When a party is appointed counsel who refuses to make an argument for the right to counsel when that right is challenged, and the party is barred from making that argument, and the party then is denied counsel and subsequently would have to make a sophisticated constitutional argument for the right to counsel with no technical vehicle for making such an argument, exceptional circu | 3 | 2016–2016 |
Eldridge v. Johndrow
green
2 sentences2016That follows from the fact that the doctrine has rarely taken hold as a firm holding of the court, see State v. Gardiner, 814 P.2d 568, 572 (Utah 1991) (noting that “this court is not bound by earlier dicta”), and from the unpredictability and unworkability of the doctrine, see Eldridge v. Johndrow, 2015 UT 21, ¶ 40 , 345 P.3d 553 (noting that “to determine whether a precedent has become firmly established,” the court first asks “how well it has worked in practice”). 2016That follows from the fact that the doctrine has rarely taken hold as a firm holding of the court, see State v. Gardiner, 814 P.2d 568, 572 (Utah 1991) (noting that “this court is not bound by earlier dicta”), and from the unpredictability and unworkability of the doctrine, see Eldridge v. Johndrow, 2015 UT 21, ¶ 40 , 345 P.3d 553 (noting that “to determine whether a precedent has become firmly established,” the court first asks “how well it has worked in practice”). | 3 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Hembree
green
2 sentences2026The question of whether the exceptional circumstances exception justifies review of an unpreserved claim “is a question that, by definition, arises in the first instance on appeal, and it is therefore a question of law.” State v. Hembree, 2025 UT App 166, ¶ 18 , -- P.3d –. 2025But even indulging this assumption, after undergoing the deeper 20230888-CA 17 2025 UT App 166 State v. Hembree inquiry we nevertheless decline to review the merits of Hembree’s alternative claim in this appeal, because in our view Hembree remains free, even after disposition of this appeal, to file a new Manning motion in the district court, and given the type of analysis that motion requires, it is best if that motion is adjudicated in the first instance in that court. ¶41 First, we see nothing in applicable rules or caselaw that would prevent a defendant from filing more than one Manning mo | 2 | 2025–2026 |
State v. Hararah
green
2 sentences2025We apply this doctrine “to reach an unpreserved issue where a rare procedural anomaly has either prevented an appellant from preserving an issue or excuses a failure to do so.” State v. Hararah, 2023 UT App 77, ¶ 22 , 534 P.3d 1129 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 540 P.3d 79 (Utah 2023). ¶47 Even assuming arguendo that the circumstances here qualify as a rare procedural anomaly, the exceptional circumstances exception does not apply. 2025We apply this doctrine “to reach an unpreserved issue where a rare procedural anomaly has either prevented an appellant from preserving an issue or excuses a failure to do so.” State v. Hararah, 2023 UT App 77, ¶ 22 , 534 P.3d 1129 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 540 P.3d 79 (Utah 2023). ¶47 Even assuming arguendo that the circumstances here qualify as a rare procedural anomaly, the exceptional circumstances exception does not apply. | 2 | 2023–2025 |
| State v. Brown green | 2 | 2020–2023 |
| State v. Van Huizen green | 2 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Bybee green | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty. green | 2 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Candedo green | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Smit green | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Dew green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Johnson v. State green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Centeno green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Mclain green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| cluster 10840911 green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Winn v. McKinlay green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Richins green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Patterson v. Patterson green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Dowhaniuk green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Colwell neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Reid green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Stewart neutral | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Modes v. State green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Flora green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Padilla green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Kelly v. Timber Lakes Property green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Taft v. Taft green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Fish v. Fish green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Featherston green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re Schwenke green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.