confines privilege (Utah) · Go Syfert
← Utah issues

confines privilege in Utah

6 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2022 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Boyce v. Boycegreen
utah · 1980 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016Further, given the “liberal standard for application of Rule 60(b) in divorce *37 cases," Boyce v. Boyce, 609 P.2d 928, 931 (Utah 1980), we cannot conclude that the district court acted in error.

11
Kimball v. Campbellgreen
utah · 1985 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007So long as a court confines its analysis to the language of the trust instrument and does not resort to extrinsic evidence of intent, the interpretation of a trust is an issue of law. *752 See Kimball v. Campbell, 699 P.2d 714, 716 (Utah 1985) ("A contract's interpretation may be either a question of law, determined by the words of the agreement, or a question of fact, determined by extrinsic evidence of intent.").

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Roberts green
utah · 2015
2 sentences

2022Instead, rule 702 permits judges, as gatekeepers, to err on the side of admission within the confines of rule 702. ―[T]he rigor of [the rule‘s application] ‗will vary depending on the complexity of the particular case.‘‖ State v. Roberts, 2015 UT 24, ¶ 54 , 345 P.3d 1226 (quoting Eskelson ex rel.

2022Instead, rule 702 permits judges, as gatekeepers, to err on the side of admission within the confines of rule 702. ―[T]he rigor of [the rule‘s application] ‗will vary depending on the complexity of the particular case.‘‖ State v. Roberts, 2015 UT 24, ¶ 54 , 345 P.3d 1226 (quoting Eskelson ex rel.

12022–2022
Hoggan v. Hoggan green
utah · 2007
2 sentences

2011Accordingly, we determine that the trial *238 court did not err by applying the discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations to May 26, 2006, the date Analisa admits she first learned of the Trust and that she may have a claim against Tonna as the trustee. 112 Next, Tonna argues that the trial court incorrectly determined that the 2001 Trust Amendment was invalid and unenforceable. 7 "So long as a court confines its analysis to the language of the trust instrument and does not resort to extrinsic evidence of intent, the interpretation of a trust is an issue of law." Hoggan v. Hoggan, 2007

2011Accordingly, we determine that the trial *238 court did not err by applying the discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations to May 26, 2006, the date Analisa admits she first learned of the Trust and that she may have a claim against Tonna as the trustee. 112 Next, Tonna argues that the trial court incorrectly determined that the 2001 Trust Amendment was invalid and unenforceable. 7 "So long as a court confines its analysis to the language of the trust instrument and does not resort to extrinsic evidence of intent, the interpretation of a trust is an issue of law." Hoggan v. Hoggan, 2007

12011–2011
Cannon v. Keller green
utah · 1984
2 sentences

1992In Cannon v. Keller, 692 P.2d 740 (Utah 1984), the Utah Supreme Court adopted just such a liberal definition when asked to determine whether a trial court had violated Rule 16(a)(5) by ordering disclosure of certain evidence — money seized from the defendant — to the defense on less than "good cause shown." The State contended that, contrary to the good cause requirement of the Rule, "the defendant failed to offer any evidence that disclosure was necessary for the preparation of the defense." [17] Id. at 743 .

1992In Cannon v. Keller, 692 P.2d 740 (Utah 1984), the Utah Supreme Court adopted just such a liberal definition when asked to determine whether a trial court had violated Rule 16(a)(5) by ordering disclosure of certain evidence — money seized from the defendant — to the defense on less than "good cause shown." The State contended that, contrary to the good cause requirement of the Rule, "the defendant failed to offer any evidence that disclosure was necessary for the preparation of the defense." [17] Id. at 743 .

11992–1992
In Re Fernandez green
connsuperct · 1974
2 sentences

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.

11980–1980
People v. Reddock green
illappct · 1973
2 sentences

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.App.3d 296 , 300 N.E.2d 31 (1973); State v. Thompson, 256 La. 934 , 240 So.2d 712 (1970); Sutton v. State, 4 Md.App. 70 , 241 A.2d 145 (1968); State v. Arsenault, 115 N.H. 109 , 336 A.2d 244 (1975); State v. Greene, 12 N.C.App. 687 , 184 S.E.2d 523 (1971); State v. Thomason, Okl.Cr., 538 P.2d 1080 (1975); Commonwealth v. Moss, 233 Pa.Super. 541 , 334 A.2d 777 (1975); Moulton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 334 (1972).

11980–1980
State v. Thompson green
la · 1970
2 sentences

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.App.3d 296 , 300 N.E.2d 31 (1973); State v. Thompson, 256 La. 934 , 240 So.2d 712 (1970); Sutton v. State, 4 Md.App. 70 , 241 A.2d 145 (1968); State v. Arsenault, 115 N.H. 109 , 336 A.2d 244 (1975); State v. Greene, 12 N.C.App. 687 , 184 S.E.2d 523 (1971); State v. Thomason, Okl.Cr., 538 P.2d 1080 (1975); Commonwealth v. Moss, 233 Pa.Super. 541 , 334 A.2d 777 (1975); Moulton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 334 (1972).

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.App.3d 296 , 300 N.E.2d 31 (1973); State v. Thompson, 256 La. 934 , 240 So.2d 712 (1970); Sutton v. State, 4 Md.App. 70 , 241 A.2d 145 (1968); State v. Arsenault, 115 N.H. 109 , 336 A.2d 244 (1975); State v. Greene, 12 N.C.App. 687 , 184 S.E.2d 523 (1971); State v. Thomason, Okl.Cr., 538 P.2d 1080 (1975); Commonwealth v. Moss, 233 Pa.Super. 541 , 334 A.2d 777 (1975); Moulton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 334 (1972).

11980–1980
State v. Thomason green
oklacrimapp · 1975
1 sentence

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.App.3d 296 , 300 N.E.2d 31 (1973); State v. Thompson, 256 La. 934 , 240 So.2d 712 (1970); Sutton v. State, 4 Md.App. 70 , 241 A.2d 145 (1968); State v. Arsenault, 115 N.H. 109 , 336 A.2d 244 (1975); State v. Greene, 12 N.C.App. 687 , 184 S.E.2d 523 (1971); State v. Thomason, Okl.Cr., 538 P.2d 1080 (1975); Commonwealth v. Moss, 233 Pa.Super. 541 , 334 A.2d 777 (1975); Moulton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 334 (1972).

11980–1980
Moulton v. State green
texcrimapp · 1971
1 sentence

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.App.3d 296 , 300 N.E.2d 31 (1973); State v. Thompson, 256 La. 934 , 240 So.2d 712 (1970); Sutton v. State, 4 Md.App. 70 , 241 A.2d 145 (1968); State v. Arsenault, 115 N.H. 109 , 336 A.2d 244 (1975); State v. Greene, 12 N.C.App. 687 , 184 S.E.2d 523 (1971); State v. Thomason, Okl.Cr., 538 P.2d 1080 (1975); Commonwealth v. Moss, 233 Pa.Super. 541 , 334 A.2d 777 (1975); Moulton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 334 (1972).

11980–1980
State v. Greene neutral
ncctapp · 1972
2 sentences

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.App.3d 296 , 300 N.E.2d 31 (1973); State v. Thompson, 256 La. 934 , 240 So.2d 712 (1970); Sutton v. State, 4 Md.App. 70 , 241 A.2d 145 (1968); State v. Arsenault, 115 N.H. 109 , 336 A.2d 244 (1975); State v. Greene, 12 N.C.App. 687 , 184 S.E.2d 523 (1971); State v. Thomason, Okl.Cr., 538 P.2d 1080 (1975); Commonwealth v. Moss, 233 Pa.Super. 541 , 334 A.2d 777 (1975); Moulton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 334 (1972).

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.App.3d 296 , 300 N.E.2d 31 (1973); State v. Thompson, 256 La. 934 , 240 So.2d 712 (1970); Sutton v. State, 4 Md.App. 70 , 241 A.2d 145 (1968); State v. Arsenault, 115 N.H. 109 , 336 A.2d 244 (1975); State v. Greene, 12 N.C.App. 687 , 184 S.E.2d 523 (1971); State v. Thomason, Okl.Cr., 538 P.2d 1080 (1975); Commonwealth v. Moss, 233 Pa.Super. 541 , 334 A.2d 777 (1975); Moulton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 334 (1972).

11980–1980
State v. Arsenault green
nh · 1975
2 sentences

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.App.3d 296 , 300 N.E.2d 31 (1973); State v. Thompson, 256 La. 934 , 240 So.2d 712 (1970); Sutton v. State, 4 Md.App. 70 , 241 A.2d 145 (1968); State v. Arsenault, 115 N.H. 109 , 336 A.2d 244 (1975); State v. Greene, 12 N.C.App. 687 , 184 S.E.2d 523 (1971); State v. Thomason, Okl.Cr., 538 P.2d 1080 (1975); Commonwealth v. Moss, 233 Pa.Super. 541 , 334 A.2d 777 (1975); Moulton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 334 (1972).

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.App.3d 296 , 300 N.E.2d 31 (1973); State v. Thompson, 256 La. 934 , 240 So.2d 712 (1970); Sutton v. State, 4 Md.App. 70 , 241 A.2d 145 (1968); State v. Arsenault, 115 N.H. 109 , 336 A.2d 244 (1975); State v. Greene, 12 N.C.App. 687 , 184 S.E.2d 523 (1971); State v. Thomason, Okl.Cr., 538 P.2d 1080 (1975); Commonwealth v. Moss, 233 Pa.Super. 541 , 334 A.2d 777 (1975); Moulton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 334 (1972).

11980–1980
Commonwealth v. Moss green
pasuperct · 1975
2 sentences

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.App.3d 296 , 300 N.E.2d 31 (1973); State v. Thompson, 256 La. 934 , 240 So.2d 712 (1970); Sutton v. State, 4 Md.App. 70 , 241 A.2d 145 (1968); State v. Arsenault, 115 N.H. 109 , 336 A.2d 244 (1975); State v. Greene, 12 N.C.App. 687 , 184 S.E.2d 523 (1971); State v. Thomason, Okl.Cr., 538 P.2d 1080 (1975); Commonwealth v. Moss, 233 Pa.Super. 541 , 334 A.2d 777 (1975); Moulton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 334 (1972).

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.App.3d 296 , 300 N.E.2d 31 (1973); State v. Thompson, 256 La. 934 , 240 So.2d 712 (1970); Sutton v. State, 4 Md.App. 70 , 241 A.2d 145 (1968); State v. Arsenault, 115 N.H. 109 , 336 A.2d 244 (1975); State v. Greene, 12 N.C.App. 687 , 184 S.E.2d 523 (1971); State v. Thomason, Okl.Cr., 538 P.2d 1080 (1975); Commonwealth v. Moss, 233 Pa.Super. 541 , 334 A.2d 777 (1975); Moulton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 334 (1972).

11980–1980
Sutton v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1968
2 sentences

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.App.3d 296 , 300 N.E.2d 31 (1973); State v. Thompson, 256 La. 934 , 240 So.2d 712 (1970); Sutton v. State, 4 Md.App. 70 , 241 A.2d 145 (1968); State v. Arsenault, 115 N.H. 109 , 336 A.2d 244 (1975); State v. Greene, 12 N.C.App. 687 , 184 S.E.2d 523 (1971); State v. Thomason, Okl.Cr., 538 P.2d 1080 (1975); Commonwealth v. Moss, 233 Pa.Super. 541 , 334 A.2d 777 (1975); Moulton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 334 (1972).

1980In re Fernandez, 31 Conn.Sup. 53 , 321 A.2d 862 (1974); People v. Reddock, 13 Ill.App.3d 296 , 300 N.E.2d 31 (1973); State v. Thompson, 256 La. 934 , 240 So.2d 712 (1970); Sutton v. State, 4 Md.App. 70 , 241 A.2d 145 (1968); State v. Arsenault, 115 N.H. 109 , 336 A.2d 244 (1975); State v. Greene, 12 N.C.App. 687 , 184 S.E.2d 523 (1971); State v. Thomason, Okl.Cr., 538 P.2d 1080 (1975); Commonwealth v. Moss, 233 Pa.Super. 541 , 334 A.2d 777 (1975); Moulton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 334 (1972).

11980–1980

Where else courts name it

ND 9 (1997–2024) CA 9 (1987–2025) PA 8 (1950–2025) TX 7 (1977–2021) DE 7 (2014–2025) UT 6 (1980–2022) NY 6 (1975–2025) FL 5 (2007–2026) CT 5 (1982–2007) NC 5 (1994–2016) IL 4 (1942–2026) AZ 3 (1953–2011) WY 3 (1982–2012) OH 3 (2005–2014) IN 3 (1992–2020) MI 3 (1998–2003) RI 2 (2018–2022) MD 2 (2012–2025) MT 2 (1998–2008) MA 2 (1993–2001)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check