Legal Opinion
Brigham City v. Stuart
Utah Supreme Court
Decided February 18, 2005No. 20021004PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEHRING, Justice:
¶ 1 We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals’s affirmance of the trial court’s order granting defendants Charles Stuart and Shayne and Sandra Taylor’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless entry into a home. The single issue we are called upon to decide is whether the court of appeals properly affirmed the trial court’s determination that the warrant-less entry was not supported by exigent circumstances and was, therefore, unlawful. We conclude that the court of appeals was correct and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
¶2 Four Brigham…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Pennsylvania v. MimmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Brigham City v. StuartSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Krysta Sutterfield v. City of MilwaukeeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2014
- State v. TiedemannUtah Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. BakerUtah Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. WorwoodUtah Supreme Court · 2007
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.