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.
6 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1913–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Glovergreen2 sentences2024See Brown v. Glover, 2000 UT 89, ¶ 23 , 16 P.3d 540 (“Generally, issues raised by an appellant in the reply brief that were not presented in the opening brief are considered waived and will not be considered by the appellate court.”). ¶145 But even if we were to overlook these procedural defects, when the Legislature raised this argument, there was insufficient time to cure the Legislature’s violation of the Publication Clause through a more tailored preliminary injunction. 2024See Brown v. Glover, 2000 UT 89, ¶ 23 , 16 P.3d 540 (“Generally, issues raised by an appellant in the reply brief that were not presented in the opening brief are considered waived and will not be considered by the appellate court.”). ¶145 But even if we were to overlook these procedural defects, when the Legislature raised this argument, there was insufficient time to cure the Legislature’s violation of the Publication Clause through a more tailored preliminary injunction. | 1 | 1 |
Jeschke v. Willisgreen1 sentence2008See In re S.M., 2007 UT 21, ¶ 15 , 154 P.3d 835 (citing In re Fox, 2004 UT 20, ¶ 5 , 89 P.3d 127 ); see also Jeschke v. Willis, 811 P.2d 202, 203 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (holding that the district court's ruling that a claim is without merit "is a question of law, and therefore we review it for correctness"). {10 The Cammacks also argue that the assessment of attorney fees and costs is improper because the legislature provided immunity to those who report allegations of abuse. | 1 | 1 |
Office of the Guardian ad Litem v. H.M.green1 sentence2008See In re S.M., 2007 UT 21, ¶ 15 , 154 P.3d 835 (citing In re Fox, 2004 UT 20, ¶ 5 , 89 P.3d 127 ); see also Jeschke v. Willis, 811 P.2d 202, 203 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (holding that the district court's ruling that a claim is without merit "is a question of law, and therefore we review it for correctness"). {10 The Cammacks also argue that the assessment of attorney fees and costs is improper because the legislature provided immunity to those who report allegations of abuse. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Foxgreen2 sentences2008See In re S.M., 2007 UT 21, ¶ 15 , 154 P.3d 835 (citing In re Fox, 2004 UT 20, ¶ 5 , 89 P.3d 127 ); see also Jeschke v. Willis, 811 P.2d 202, 203 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (holding that the district court's ruling that a claim is without merit "is a question of law, and therefore we review it for correctness"). {10 The Cammacks also argue that the assessment of attorney fees and costs is improper because the legislature provided immunity to those who report allegations of abuse. 2008See In re S.M., 2007 UT 21, ¶ 15 , 154 P.3d 835 (citing In re Fox, 2004 UT 20, ¶ 5 , 89 P.3d 127 ); see also Jeschke v. Willis, 811 P.2d 202, 203 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (holding that the district court's ruling that a claim is without merit "is a question of law, and therefore we review it for correctness"). {10 The Cammacks also argue that the assessment of attorney fees and costs is improper because the legislature provided immunity to those who report allegations of abuse. | 1 | 1 |
In Interest of Smgreen1 sentence2008See In re S.M., 2007 UT 21, ¶ 15 , 154 P.3d 835 (citing In re Fox, 2004 UT 20, ¶ 5 , 89 P.3d 127 ); see also Jeschke v. Willis, 811 P.2d 202, 203 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (holding that the district court's ruling that a claim is without merit "is a question of law, and therefore we review it for correctness"). {10 The Cammacks also argue that the assessment of attorney fees and costs is improper because the legislature provided immunity to those who report allegations of abuse. | 1 | 1 |
Morton International, Inc. v. Auditing Division of the Utah State Tax Commissiongreen1 sentence2006Cf. Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Auditing Div., 814 P.2d 581, 590 (Utah 1991) (“[A] statutory term should be interpreted and applied according to its usually accepted meaning, where the ordinary meaning of the term results in an application that is neither unreasonably confused, inoperable, nor in blatant contradiction of the express purpose of the statute.”) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Sohn v. Watersongreen2 sentences1950See Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596 , 84 U. S. 596 , 21 L. 1950See Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596 , 84 U. S. 596 , 21 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
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. Burns
green
2 sentences2008"Because the interpretation of [a statute] is an issue of law, we review the decision below for correctness." Munson v. Chamberlain, 2007 UT 91, ¶ 6 , 173 P.3d 848 (citing State v. Burns, 2000 UT 56, ¶ 15 , 4 P.3d 795 ). 2008"Because the interpretation of [a statute] is an issue of law, we review the decision below for correctness." Munson v. Chamberlain, 2007 UT 91, ¶ 6 , 173 P.3d 848 (citing State v. Burns, 2000 UT 56, ¶ 15 , 4 P.3d 795 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Munson v. Chamberlain
green
2 sentences2008"Because the interpretation of [a statute] is an issue of law, we review the decision below for correctness." Munson v. Chamberlain, 2007 UT 91, ¶ 6 , 173 P.3d 848 (citing State v. Burns, 2000 UT 56, ¶ 15 , 4 P.3d 795 ). 2008"Because the interpretation of [a statute] is an issue of law, we review the decision below for correctness." Munson v. Chamberlain, 2007 UT 91, ¶ 6 , 173 P.3d 848 (citing State v. Burns, 2000 UT 56, ¶ 15 , 4 P.3d 795 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Western Holding Co. v. Northwestern Land & Loan Co.
green
2 sentences1950See Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596 , 84 U.S. 596 , 21 L.Ed. 737 ; Thoeni v. City of Dubuque, 115 Iowa 482 , 88 N.W. 967 ; Western Holding Company v. Northwestern Land & Loan Co., 113 Mont. 24 , 120 P.2d 557 ; Wallace v. McEchron, *465 176 N.Y. 424 , 68 N.E. 663 . 1950See Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596 , 84 U.S. 596 , 21 L.Ed. 737 ; Thoeni v. City of Dubuque, 115 Iowa 482 , 88 N.W. 967 ; Western Holding Company v. Northwestern Land & Loan Co., 113 Mont. 24 , 120 P.2d 557 ; Wallace v. McEchron, *465 176 N.Y. 424 , 68 N.E. 663 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Wallace v. . McEchron
green
2 sentences1950See Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596 , 84 U.S. 596 , 21 L.Ed. 737 ; Thoeni v. City of Dubuque, 115 Iowa 482 , 88 N.W. 967 ; Western Holding Company v. Northwestern Land & Loan Co., 113 Mont. 24 , 120 P.2d 557 ; Wallace v. McEchron, *465 176 N.Y. 424 , 68 N.E. 663 . 1950See Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596 , 84 U.S. 596 , 21 L.Ed. 737 ; Thoeni v. City of Dubuque, 115 Iowa 482 , 88 N.W. 967 ; Western Holding Company v. Northwestern Land & Loan Co., 113 Mont. 24 , 120 P.2d 557 ; Wallace v. McEchron, *465 176 N.Y. 424 , 68 N.E. 663 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Thoeni v. City of Dubuque
green
2 sentences1950See Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596 , 84 U.S. 596 , 21 L.Ed. 737 ; Thoeni v. City of Dubuque, 115 Iowa 482 , 88 N.W. 967 ; Western Holding Company v. Northwestern Land & Loan Co., 113 Mont. 24 , 120 P.2d 557 ; Wallace v. McEchron, *465 176 N.Y. 424 , 68 N.E. 663 . 1950See Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596 , 84 U.S. 596 , 21 L.Ed. 737 ; Thoeni v. City of Dubuque, 115 Iowa 482 , 88 N.W. 967 ; Western Holding Company v. Northwestern Land & Loan Co., 113 Mont. 24 , 120 P.2d 557 ; Wallace v. McEchron, *465 176 N.Y. 424 , 68 N.E. 663 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
American Fork City v. Charlier
neutral
1 sentence1913These contentions have all been decided against the demurrants in the recent case of American Fork City v. Charlier, 43 Utah, —■—, 134 Pac. 739 . 2 We are also of the opinion that it was competent for the municipality to declare the things enumerated in the ordinance to be common nuisances. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.