Utah Code
Utah Code § 76-5-106.5 (2026)
Stalking -- Definitions -- Injunction -- Penalties -- Duties of law enforcement officer
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
9/1/2026
As used in this section:
"Course of conduct" means two or more acts directed at or toward a specific individual, including:
acts in which the actor follows, monitors, observes, photographs, surveils, threatens, or communicates to or about an individual, or interferes with an individual's property:
directly, indirectly, or through any third party; and
by any action, method, device, or means; or
when the actor engages in any of the following acts or causes someone else to engage in any of these acts:
approaches or confronts an individual;
appears at the individual's workplace or contacts the individual's employer or coworker;
appears at an individual's residence or contacts an individual's neighbor, or enters property owned, leased, or occupied by an individual;
sends material by any means to the individual or for the purpose of obtaining or disseminating information about or communicating with the individual to a member of the individual's family or household, employer, coworker, friend, or associate of the individual;
places an object on or delivers an object to property owned, leased, or occupied by an individual, or to the individual's place of employment with the intent that the object be delivered to the individual; or
uses a computer, the Internet, text messaging, or any other electronic means to commit an act that is a part of the course of conduct.
"Emotional distress" means significant mental or psychological suffering, whether or not medical or other professional treatment or counseling is required.
"Emotional distress" includes significant mental or psychological suffering resulting from harm to an animal.
"Immediate family" means a spouse, parent, child, sibling, or any other individual who regularly resides in the household or who regularly resided in the household within the prior six months.
"Private investigator" means the same as that term is defined in Section 76-12-305.
"Reasonable person" means a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances.
"Stalking" means an offense as described in Subsection (2).
"Text messaging" means a communication in the form of electronic text or one or more electronic images sent by the actor from a telephone or computer to another individual's telephone or computer by addressing the communication to the recipient's telephone number.
Terms defined in Section 76-1-101.5 apply to this section.
An actor commits stalking if the actor intentionally or knowingly:
engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific individual and knows or is reckless as to whether the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person:
to fear for the individual's own safety or the safety of a third individual; or
to suffer other emotional distress; or
violates:
a stalking injunction issued under Title 78B, Chapter 7, Part 7, Civil Stalking Injunctions; or
a permanent criminal stalking injunction issued under Title 78B, Chapter 7, Part 9, Criminal Stalking Injunctions.
A violation of Subsection (2) is a class A misdemeanor:
upon the actor's first violation of Subsection (2); or
if the actor violated a stalking injunction issued under Title 78B, Chapter 7, Part 7, Civil Stalking Injunctions.
Notwithstanding Subsection (3)(a), a violation of Subsection (2) is a third degree felony if the actor:
has been previously convicted of an offense of stalking;
has been previously convicted in another jurisdiction of an offense that is substantially similar to the offense of stalking;
has been previously convicted of any felony offense in Utah or of any crime in another jurisdiction which if committed in Utah would be a felony, in which the victim of the stalking offense or a member of the victim's immediate family was also a victim of the previous felony offense;
violated a permanent criminal stalking injunction issued under Title 78B, Chapter 7, Part 9, Criminal Stalking Injunctions; or
has been or is at the time of the offense a cohabitant, as defined in Section 78B-7-102, of the victim.
Notwithstanding Subsection (3)(a) or (b), a violation of Subsection (2) is a second degree felony if the actor:
used a dangerous weapon or used other means or force likely to produce death or serious bodily injury, in the commission of the crime of stalking;
has been previously convicted two or more times of the offense of stalking;
has been convicted two or more times in another jurisdiction or jurisdictions of offenses that are substantially similar to the offense of stalking;
has been convicted two or more times, in any combination, of offenses under Subsection (3)(b)(i), (ii), or (iii);
has been previously convicted two or more times of felony offenses in Utah or of crimes in another jurisdiction or jurisdictions which, if committed in Utah, would be felonies, in which the victim of the stalking was also a victim of the previous felony offenses; or
has been previously convicted of an offense under Subsection (3)(b)(iv) or (v).
In a prosecution under this section, it is not a defense that the actor:
was not given actual notice that the course of conduct was unwanted; or
did not intend to cause the victim fear or other emotional distress.
An offense of stalking may be prosecuted under this section in any jurisdiction where one or more of the acts that is part of the course of conduct was initiated or caused an effect on the victim.
Except as provided in Subsection (6)(b), an actor does not violate this section if:
the actor is acting:
in the actor's official capacity as a law enforcement officer, governmental investigator, or private investigator; and
for a legitimate official or business purpose; or
the actor is the owner of a business;
the actor engages in a course of conduct that is reasonable and necessary to protect the actor's ownership interest in the business;
the conduct is not directed at a cohabitant, as that term is defined in Section 78B-7-102; and
the actor's conduct does not violate any other provision of this code.
A private investigator is not exempt from this section if the private investigator engages in conduct that would constitute a ground for the denial of a license under Section 58-92-401.
A permanent criminal stalking injunction limiting the contact between the actor and victim may be filed in accordance with Section 78B-7-902.
This section does not preclude the filing of criminal information for stalking based on the same act which is the basis for the violation of the stalking injunction issued under Title 78B, Chapter 7, Part 7, Civil Stalking Injunctions, or a permanent criminal stalking injunction issued under Title 78B, Chapter 7, Part 9, Criminal Stalking Injunctions.
A law enforcement officer who responds to an allegation of stalking shall use all reasonable means to protect the victim and prevent further violence, including:
taking action that, in the officer's discretion, is reasonably necessary to provide for the safety of the victim and any family or household member;
confiscating the weapon or weapons involved in the alleged stalking;
making arrangements for the victim and any child to obtain emergency housing or shelter;
providing protection while the victim removes essential personal effects;
arranging, facilitating, or providing for the victim and any child to obtain medical treatment; and
arranging, facilitating, or providing the victim with immediate and adequate notice of the rights of victims and of the remedies and services available to victims of stalking, in accordance with Subsection (8)(b).
A law enforcement officer shall give written notice to the victim in simple language, describing the rights and remedies available under this section and Title 78B, Chapter 7, Part 7, Civil Stalking Injunctions.
The written notice shall also include:
a statement that the forms needed in order to obtain a stalking injunction are available from the court clerk's office in the judicial district where the victim resides or is temporarily domiciled; and
a list of shelters, services, and resources available in the appropriate community, together with telephone numbers, to assist the victim in accessing any needed assistance.
If a weapon is confiscated under this Subsection (8), the law enforcement agency shall return the weapon to the individual from whom the weapon is confiscated if a stalking injunction is not issued or once the stalking injunction is terminated.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 67
cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Ellison v. Stam, 2006 UT App 150 (Utah Ct. App. 2006).
Ellison v. Stam, 2006 UT App 150 (Utah Ct. App. 2006). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (2)(a). “[W]e review the trial court’s findings of fact for clear error, reversing only where [a] finding is against the clear weight of the evidence, or if we otherwise reach a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
Bott v. Osburn, 2011 UT App 139 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “5 (criminal stalking statute), see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (2008), a prerequisite for the issuance of a civil stalking injunction under the civil stalking statute.”
Bailey v. Bayles, 2002 UT 58 (Utah 2002). “First, the trial court looked to Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (2) (1999), the Utah criminal stalking statute, to determine that Bayles had been stalking Bailey.”
State v. Kitches, 2021 UT App 24 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (1)(a) (LexisNexis Supp.”
Bailey v. Bayles, 2001 UT App 34 (Utah Ct. App. 2001). “ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 8 Bayles argues that, because the trial court relied on Utah's criminal Stalking statute, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (1999), the trial court's findings do not satisfy the requisite burden of proof to prove that Bayles Stalked Bailey, and…”
Baird v. Baird, 2014 UT 8 (Utah 2014). “Gloria argues that the Model Stalking Code "suggests that section 76-5-106.5 codified the Lopez definition” of emotional distress because the drafters "recognized with approval” case law that, like Lopez , imported the definition of emotional distress from tort law.”
Wilson v. Wilson, 2024 UT App 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “For a legal definition of stalking, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 . The No Contact Order read: 4.”
Ragsdale v. Fishler, 2020 UT 56 (Utah 2020). “In his view, she invited this error by claiming that any profane comments or gestures made by Mr. Fishler to other ECA employees were ultimately directed at her.”
State v. Kropf, 2015 UT App 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (9)(b) (LexisNexis 2008) (providing that after a conviction of stalking, "[a] permanent eriminal stalking injunction shall be issued by the court without a hearing unless the defendant requests a hearing at the time of the conviction") 1…”
State v. Bingham, 2015 UT App 103 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (2) (LexisNexis 2012).”
Salt Lake City v. Lopez, 935 P.2d 1259 (Utah Ct. App. 1997). “BENCH, Judge: Defendant seeks reversal of his conviction for stalking, a class B misdemeanor, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (1995). Defendant contends the stalking statute is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face and as applied to him, as well as…”
Richins v. Weldon, 2023 UT App 147 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “See Utah Code §§ 76-5-106.5, 78B-7-701. Weldon’s initial set of issues surrounds the first element of stalking.”
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(1) — 4 cases
Ragsdale v. Fishler, 2020 UT 56 (Utah 2020). “In his view, she invited this error by claiming that any profane comments or gestures made by Mr. Fishler to other ECA employees were ultimately directed at her.”
State v. Miller, 2021 UT App 88 (Utah Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Miller, 2019 UT App 46 (Utah Ct. App. 2019).
Abernathy v. Mzik, 167 P.3d 512 (Utah Ct. App. 2007).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(1)(a) — 8 cases
State v. Kitches, 2021 UT App 24 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (1)(a) (LexisNexis Supp.”
Ragsdale v. Fishler, 2020 UT 56 (Utah 2020). “In his view, she invited this error by claiming that any profane comments or gestures made by Mr. Fishler to other ECA employees were ultimately directed at her.”
Towner v. Ridgway, 2008 UT 23 (Utah 2008).
State v. Rashid, 2021 UT App 17 (Utah Ct. App. 2021).
Harris v. Hunt, 2024 UT App 117 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(1)(a)(i) — 9 cases
State v. Kitches, 2021 UT App 24 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (1)(a) (LexisNexis Supp.”
Richins v. Weldon, 2023 UT App 147 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “See Utah Code §§ 76-5-106.5, 78B-7-701. Weldon’s initial set of issues surrounds the first element of stalking.”
Ragsdale v. Fishler, 2020 UT 56 (Utah 2020). “In his view, she invited this error by claiming that any profane comments or gestures made by Mr. Fishler to other ECA employees were ultimately directed at her.”
Wilson v. Wilson, 2024 UT App 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “For a legal definition of stalking, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 . The No Contact Order read: 4.”
Harris v. Hunt, 2024 UT App 117 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(1)(a)(i)(A) — 5 cases
Richins v. Weldon, 2023 UT App 147 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “See Utah Code §§ 76-5-106.5, 78B-7-701. Weldon’s initial set of issues surrounds the first element of stalking.”
Wilson v. Wilson, 2024 UT App 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “For a legal definition of stalking, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 . The No Contact Order read: 4.”
Anderson v. Deem, 2023 UT App 48 (Utah Ct. App. 2023).
Harris v. Hunt, 2024 UT App 117 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
Hasemeyer v. Lefevre, 2026 UT App 70 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(1)(a)(i)(B) — 4 cases
Wilson v. Wilson, 2024 UT App 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “For a legal definition of stalking, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 . The No Contact Order read: 4.”
Richins v. Weldon, 2023 UT App 147 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “See Utah Code §§ 76-5-106.5, 78B-7-701. Weldon’s initial set of issues surrounds the first element of stalking.”
Harris v. Hunt, 2024 UT App 117 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
Hasemeyer v. Lefevre, 2026 UT App 70 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(1)(a)(ii) — 1 case
Ragsdale v. Fishler, 2020 UT 56 (Utah 2020). “In his view, she invited this error by claiming that any profane comments or gestures made by Mr. Fishler to other ECA employees were ultimately directed at her.”
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(1)(a)(ii)(A) — 3 cases
Wilson v. Wilson, 2024 UT App 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “For a legal definition of stalking, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 . The No Contact Order read: 4.”
State v. Schroeder, 2023 UT App 57 (Utah Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Barney, 2025 UT App 153 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(1)(a)(ii)(B) — 1 case
Ragsdale v. Fishler, 2020 UT 56 (Utah 2020). “In his view, she invited this error by claiming that any profane comments or gestures made by Mr. Fishler to other ECA employees were ultimately directed at her.”
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(1)(a)(v) — 3 cases
Anderson v. Deem, 2023 UT App 48 (Utah Ct. App. 2023).
Wilson v. Wilson, 2024 UT App 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “For a legal definition of stalking, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 . The No Contact Order read: 4.”
State v. Barney, 2025 UT App 153 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(1)(b) — 18 cases
Jones v. Barlow, 2007 UT 20 (Utah 2007).
Salt Lake City v. Josephson, 2019 UT 6 (Utah 2019).
Sheeran v. Thomas, 2014 UT App 285 (Utah Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Miller, 2023 UT 3 (Utah 2023).
Ragsdale v. Fishler, 2020 UT 56 (Utah 2020). “In his view, she invited this error by claiming that any profane comments or gestures made by Mr. Fishler to other ECA employees were ultimately directed at her.”
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(1)(b)(i) — 4 cases
State v. Miller, 2021 UT App 88 (Utah Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Miller, 2019 UT App 46 (Utah Ct. App. 2019).
Hardy v. Hardy, 2020 UT App 88 (Utah Ct. App. 2020).
Higley v. Buhler, 2019 UT App 96 (Utah Ct. App. 2019).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(1)(b)(ii) — 2 cases
State v. Miller, 2021 UT App 88 (Utah Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Miller, 2019 UT App 46 (Utah Ct. App. 2019).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(1)(c) — 2 cases
Towner v. Ridgway, 2008 UT 23 (Utah 2008).
Abernathy v. Mzik, 167 P.3d 512 (Utah Ct. App. 2007).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(1)(d) — 7 cases
Bott v. Osburn, 2011 UT App 139 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “5 (criminal stalking statute), see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (2008), a prerequisite for the issuance of a civil stalking injunction under the civil stalking statute.”
Meyer v. Aposhian, 2016 UT App 47 (Utah Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Miller, 2021 UT App 88 (Utah Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Miller, 2019 UT App 46 (Utah Ct. App. 2019).
Corona-Leyva v. Hartman, 2022 UT App 45 (Utah Ct. App. 2022).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(1)(e) — 5 cases
State v. Miller, 2023 UT 3 (Utah 2023).
Bott v. Osburn, 2011 UT App 139 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “5 (criminal stalking statute), see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (2008), a prerequisite for the issuance of a civil stalking injunction under the civil stalking statute.”
Roper v. Shovan, 2013 UT App 124 (Utah Ct. App. 2013).
Higley v. Buhler, 2019 UT App 96 (Utah Ct. App. 2019).
Baird v. Baird, 2014 UT 8 (Utah 2014).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(10) — 2 cases
State v. Kropf, 2015 UT App 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (9)(b) (LexisNexis 2008) (providing that after a conviction of stalking, "[a] permanent eriminal stalking injunction shall be issued by the court without a hearing unless the defendant requests a hearing at the time of the conviction") 1…”
State v. Thalab, 2026 UT App 43 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(10)(c) — 1 case
State v. Thalab, 2026 UT App 43 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(11) — 2 cases
State v. Kropf, 2015 UT App 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (9)(b) (LexisNexis 2008) (providing that after a conviction of stalking, "[a] permanent eriminal stalking injunction shall be issued by the court without a hearing unless the defendant requests a hearing at the time of the conviction") 1…”
State v. Thalab, 2026 UT App 43 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(12) — 1 case
State v. Kropf, 2015 UT App 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (9)(b) (LexisNexis 2008) (providing that after a conviction of stalking, "[a] permanent eriminal stalking injunction shall be issued by the court without a hearing unless the defendant requests a hearing at the time of the conviction") 1…”
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(16) — 1 case
Salt Lake City v. Josephson, 2019 UT 6 (Utah 2019).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(2) — 35 cases
Ragsdale v. Fishler, 2020 UT 56 (Utah 2020). “In his view, she invited this error by claiming that any profane comments or gestures made by Mr. Fishler to other ECA employees were ultimately directed at her.”
State v. Kitches, 2021 UT App 24 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (1)(a) (LexisNexis Supp.”
State v. Miller, 2023 UT 3 (Utah 2023).
Baird v. Baird, 2014 UT 8 (Utah 2014). “Gloria argues that the Model Stalking Code "suggests that section 76-5-106.5 codified the Lopez definition” of emotional distress because the drafters "recognized with approval” case law that, like Lopez , imported the definition of emotional distress from tort law.”
Anderson v. Deem, 2023 UT App 48 (Utah Ct. App. 2023).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(2)(a) — 12 cases
Ellison v. Stam, 2006 UT App 150 (Utah Ct. App. 2006). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (2)(a). “[W]e review the trial court’s findings of fact for clear error, reversing only where [a] finding is against the clear weight of the evidence, or if we otherwise reach a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
Anderson v. Deem, 2023 UT App 48 (Utah Ct. App. 2023).
Wilson v. Wilson, 2024 UT App 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “For a legal definition of stalking, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 . The No Contact Order read: 4.”
Richins v. Weldon, 2023 UT App 147 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “See Utah Code §§ 76-5-106.5, 78B-7-701. Weldon’s initial set of issues surrounds the first element of stalking.”
Harris v. Hunt, 2024 UT App 117 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(2)(a)(i) — 1 case
Hasemeyer v. Lefevre, 2026 UT App 70 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(2)(a)(ii) — 1 case
Ellison v. Stam, 2006 UT App 150 (Utah Ct. App. 2006). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (2)(a). “[W]e review the trial court’s findings of fact for clear error, reversing only where [a] finding is against the clear weight of the evidence, or if we otherwise reach a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(2)(b) — 4 cases
State v. West, 2023 UT App 61 (Utah Ct. App. 2023).
Coombs v. Dietrich, 2011 UT App 136 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).
Towner v. Ridgway, 2008 UT 23 (Utah 2008).
State v. Bingham, 2015 UT App 103 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (2) (LexisNexis 2012).”
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(2)(b)(i) — 1 case
State v. Lucke, 2025 UT App 49 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(2)(c) — 2 cases
Bott v. Osburn, 2011 UT App 139 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “5 (criminal stalking statute), see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (2008), a prerequisite for the issuance of a civil stalking injunction under the civil stalking statute.”
Towner v. Ridgway, 2008 UT 23 (Utah 2008).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(3) — 2 cases
State v. Miller, 2023 UT 3 (Utah 2023).
Salt Lake City v. Josephson, 2019 UT 6 (Utah 2019).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Cline, 2017 UT App 49 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(3)(b)(v) — 1 case
State v. Lucke, 2025 UT App 49 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(4)(a) — 2 cases
Baird v. Baird, 2014 UT 8 (Utah 2014). “Gloria argues that the Model Stalking Code "suggests that section 76-5-106.5 codified the Lopez definition” of emotional distress because the drafters "recognized with approval” case law that, like Lopez , imported the definition of emotional distress from tort law.”
Baird v. Baird, 2014 UT 8 (Utah 2014).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(7)(a) — 1 case
State v. Thalab, 2026 UT App 43 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(9) — 1 case
State v. Thalab, 2026 UT App 43 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(9)(a) — 1 case
State v. Thalab, 2026 UT App 43 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(9)(a)(i)(B) — 1 case
State v. Thalab, 2026 UT App 43 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(9)(b) — 1 case
State v. Thalab, 2026 UT App 43 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(9)(d) — 1 case
State v. Thalab, 2026 UT App 43 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(b) — 1 case
Bott v. Osburn, 2011 UT App 139 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “5 (criminal stalking statute), see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5 (2008), a prerequisite for the issuance of a civil stalking injunction under the civil stalking statute.”
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(l)(d) — 1 case
Baird v. Baird, 2014 UT 8 (Utah 2014). “Gloria argues that the Model Stalking Code "suggests that section 76-5-106.5 codified the Lopez definition” of emotional distress because the drafters "recognized with approval” case law that, like Lopez , imported the definition of emotional distress from tort law.”
— Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(l)(e) — 1 case
Baird v. Baird, 2014 UT 8 (Utah 2014). “Gloria argues that the Model Stalking Code "suggests that section 76-5-106.5 codified the Lopez definition” of emotional distress because the drafters "recognized with approval” case law that, like Lopez , imported the definition of emotional distress from tort law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.