This case involves defendant William Lovell's third direct appeal challenging his conviction for aggravated murder after he sought to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court denied the motion, finding that the trial court had complied with Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e) or that any noncompliance did not constitute good cause without proof of prejudice. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court's failure to strictly comply with rule 11(e) by not advising Lovell of certain constitutional rights he was waiving provided good cause to permit withdrawal of the plea. The court reasoned that strict compliance with the rule's requirements for a valid guilty plea is mandatory and that no additional showing of prejudice is needed to establish good cause under the applicable statute.
The case involved the family of an eleven-year-old boy who was killed by a black bear while camping in American Fork Canyon, suing the State of Utah and its Division of Wildlife Resources for negligence. State officials had responded to an earlier bear attack at the same site that day but did not warn campers or request the U.S. Forest Service to close the area. The district court granted the State judgment on the pleadings, ruling that governmental immunity applied under the permit exception of the Governmental Immunity Act because the claim related to the failure to revoke camping authorization. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the permit exception did not apply because the injury did not arise from the issuance, denial, or revocation of any permit or similar authorization. The court also declined to consider alternate immunity arguments, such as the natural condition exception, that were not properly raised or apparent in the record below.
In this interlocutory appeal, API challenged the district court's denial of its motion to disqualify Judge Quinn after he reviewed confidential arbitration materials from a prior dispute between API and Camco Construction over a construction contract for an athletic facility. The underlying case involved claims of breach of contract, mechanic's liens, and disputes with KeyBank regarding loan funding. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that API's motion was untimely under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 63 because it was not filed within twenty days after API learned of the grounds for disqualification. The court reasoned that the rule's time limits apply strictly to all disqualification motions, regardless of how they are styled, and API failed to exercise reasonable diligence in bringing the issue promptly.
The case arose from a juvenile court order granting adoption of two Navajo children by non-Indian foster parents after years of state child welfare involvement, with the Navajo Nation seeking to challenge multiple orders including denial of transfer to tribal court. The Nation filed an appeal but its notice lacked the required tribal signature and was untimely under Utah rules. The Utah Supreme Court held that the Indian Child Welfare Act does not preempt state notice-of-appeal requirements and that Indian tribes are not exempt from them as quasi-sovereign entities, so the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. The reasoning emphasized that ICWA's good-cause provision allows denial of untimely transfer requests to prevent tactical delays, and state procedural rules on signatures and timeliness apply equally to all parties.
This case involved the Navajo Nation's appeal of a Utah juvenile court order granting the adoption of two enrolled Navajo children by their non-Indian foster parents, along with related custody and placement orders. The Nation argued that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and tribal sovereignty exempted it from certain state procedural rules. The Utah Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the Nation failed to timely file a notice of appeal signed by the Nation itself. The court reasoned that ICWA does not preempt Utah's notice-of-appeal requirements and that Indian tribes, like other parties, must comply with those rules, including the signature mandate under state statutes and appellate rules.