Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
On the bench with
State v. Munguia
Utah Supreme Court · 2011-01-14 · cited 70×
Fred Munguia pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child and two counts of sexual abuse of a child involving his daughter, and received consecutive prison sentences of three years to life and one to fifteen years. On appeal, Munguia argued that the sentencing judge should have recused himself and that the court failed to consider statutes governing probation eligibility and concurrent versus consecutive sentencing. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the sentences, holding that the judge was not required to recuse, that Munguia failed to show plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the sentence complied with Utah law.
criminal lawprocedure
Neff v. Neff
Utah Supreme Court · 2011-01-14 · cited 57×
The case involved disputes between brothers Branson and Marvin Neff stemming from their joint construction business, a family trust, and personal altercations that led to claims including malicious prosecution, assault and battery, breach of contract, slander of title, and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court granted summary judgment against Branson on his malicious prosecution claim, determined that neither brother was the prevailing party for attorney fees purposes, and entered JNOV against jury verdicts on the slander of title and breach of fiduciary duty claims. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment because Branson's plea in abeyance agreement meant the criminal proceedings did not terminate in his favor, an essential element of malicious prosecution. It also affirmed the attorney fees ruling after considering the overall litigation outcomes but reversed the JNOV on slander of title, reasoning that attorney fees incurred to clear title can serve as damages in that tort, while upholding the JNOV on the fiduciary duty claim where such fees alone cannot establish damages. The matter was remanded to determine the amount of those attorney fees.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability
Gillmor v. Summit County
Utah Supreme Court · 2010-12-28 · cited 8×
This case involves a land use dispute in which property owner Nadine Gillmor challenged Summit County's denial of her application to amend zoning ordinances in the Snyderville Basin area that restricted development of her land. The Utah Supreme Court held that Gillmor's petition for review under section 801(2)(a) of the County Land Use Development and Management Act was timely because it was filed within thirty days of the county's final decision. The court further ruled that a timely petition permits assertion of any claims related to the decision's alleged arbitrary, capricious, or illegal nature, including facial challenges to the validity of the underlying 1997 Plan and 1998 Code. The reasoning rested on the statute's text allowing district court review of county land use decisions made in the exercise or violation of CLUDMA provisions, without separate time limits for related constitutional or statutory claims.
propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory
Hudgens v. PROSPER, INC.
Utah Supreme Court · 2010-11-23 · cited 51×
This case involves an employee, Chad Hudgens, who sued his employer Prosper, Inc. and supervisor Joshua Christopherson after being subjected to a waterboarding incident presented as a motivational exercise, which caused him physical and emotional harm and led him to quit his job. Hudgens asserted claims including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful termination, and intentional interference with contract. The district court granted Prosper's motion to dismiss the claims and denied Hudgens leave to amend his complaint. On appeal, the court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for leave to amend because its order failed to provide any reasons for the denial, as required when justice so requires under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). The court therefore reversed and remanded without addressing the merits of the dismissal order.
labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability
Dfi Properties LLC v. Gr 2 Enterprises LLC
Utah Supreme Court · 2010-11-02
This case involved an unlawful detainer action in which DFI Properties sought to evict GR 2 Enterprises from real property after acquiring it through a trustee's sale; the district court entered default judgment against GR 2 as a sanction for conduct it deemed sanctionable under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 11. GR 2 appealed the default judgment and related rulings. The Utah Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the district court's order was not final: it explicitly left unresolved the amount of attorney fees, treble damages, and other issues for later determination. Under Utah law, a judgment that does not fully resolve a pending request for attorney fees is not appealable as a final order.
propertyprocedure
State v. Harker
Utah Supreme Court · 2010-09-28 · cited 47×
This case concerned whether a police officer had statutory authority under Utah Code section 77-7-2(1) to arrest a driver for the class B misdemeanor of operating a vehicle without insurance, which requires the offense to have occurred "in the presence" of the officer, and whether drugs and paraphernalia found in a search incident to that arrest should be suppressed. The Utah Supreme Court held that the statutory phrase requires the officer to have perceived all elements of the offense firsthand through one of their physical senses. The court further ruled that, under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Virginia v. Moore, a warrantless arrest supported by probable cause but lacking statutory authority does not violate the Fourth Amendment, so evidence from the search need not be excluded.
criminal lawprocedure