State v. Johnson
| Docket Number | 20140794 |
| Decision Date | 14 November 2017 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
268 cases
-
Osguthorpe v. Rudd (In re Osguthorpe)
...court and/or in their opening appellate brief, an appellate court will not reach that issue. See State v. Johnson , 2017 UT 76, ¶ 14, 416 P.3d 443. ¶131 We agree with Rudd/Ballard that the Osguthorpe Children failed to specifically raise this issue in their opening brief. However, because o......
-
Kelly v. Timber Lakes Prop. Owners Ass'n
...to themselves, while allowing an impartial tribunal to determine the merits of those arguments." State v. Johnson , 2017 UT 76, ¶ 8, 416 P.3d 443. See Robert J. Labrum, History and Application of the Plain Error Doctrine in Utah , 2000 Utah L. Rev. 537, 537–38 (2000) [hereinafter Labrum] (i......
-
State v. Aziakanou
...the prosecutor's explanation. Accordingly, this argument is both unpreserved and waived. See State v. Johnson , 2017 UT 76, ¶¶ 15–16, 416 P.3d 443 (explaining that "[w]hen a party fails to raise and argue an issue in the trial court, it has failed to preserve the issue" and that "[w]hen a p......
-
State v. Ray
...exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful." State v. Johnson , 2017 UT 76, ¶ 20, 416 P.3d 443 (quotation simplified). Under the third prong, for an error to be harmful, it "must be shown to have been of such a magnitude that there is ......
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
SUPPLEMENTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING.
...relief and constitutional right manifest error). (50.) For an overview of the term, see supra note 3. (51.) See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443, 457-58 (Utah 2017) (detailing when such sua sponte action is merited); Kaiserman Assocs. v. Francis Town, 977 P.2d 462, 464 (Utah 1998) (pro......