Ronald E. Nehring

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

procedure

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.

civil rightsfederal powerfamily lawprocedure

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.

family lawfederal powercivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned whether Holliday Water Company, a shareholder-owned corporation, was required to fluoridate its public water supply under a Salt Lake County health regulation adopted after voters approved a ballot measure in 2000. The district court granted summary judgment to the county, ruling that Holliday Water was not a functionally separate system and thus had to comply. While the appeal was pending, the Utah Legislature amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt corporate public water systems whose shareholders oppose fluoridation. The Utah Supreme Court held that the statutory change mooted the dispute, vacated the district court's judgment, and directed dismissal, while noting that any pre-existing enforceable contract between the parties would not be displaced retroactively.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryelectionsprocedure

This case involves a divorce between David and Shirlene Ostermiller with disputes over retroactive alimony from the divorce date until Shirlene's remarriage, a share of rental proceeds from marital property, and retroactive child support. The Utah Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the court of appeals' rulings. It held that the district court properly awarded temporary alimony because the issue had been expressly reserved throughout the proceedings and the remarriage did not automatically terminate the obligation before it was decided. The court affirmed the denial of the rental proceeds claim due to failure to marshal evidence on appeal and reversed the court of appeals' requirement that David produce a nonexistent trial transcript for the child support issue. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Arbogast Family Trust and River Crossings, LLC, over whether a late fee was owed on a $2.45 million loan that was repaid after its due date, with the disputed amount held in escrow and the trust filing a declaratory judgment action to obtain the funds. After River Crossings did not file an answer despite extensions and settlement discussions, the trust obtained a default judgment without providing notice. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' ruling that the trust was not required to give notice of the default under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 5(a)(2)(B) because River Crossings had not made a formal appearance by submitting a pleading or other presentation to the trial court. The court held that informal communications, such as emails or settlement offers, do not qualify as an appearance under the rule, so no service of the default request was needed. The decision upheld the denial of River Crossings' motion to set aside the default judgment.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved USA Power's claims that PacifiCorp misappropriated trade secrets and breached a confidentiality agreement after receiving detailed information about USA Power's proposed Spring Canyon power plant project during negotiations, then developing its own similar Currant Creek plant instead of purchasing the project; USA Power also claimed its former attorney and her firm breached fiduciary duties of confidentiality and loyalty by simultaneously representing both parties and disclosing confidential information. The district court granted summary judgment to PacifiCorp, the attorney, and the firm, finding the information was public and not a trade secret and that there was no simultaneous representation or breach. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether a compilation of public and non-public information could qualify as a protectable trade secret, whether PacifiCorp misappropriated it, and whether the attorney had conflicting representations that breached her duties.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Bruce and Judith Hills suing United Parcel Service, Inc., its insurer Liberty Mutual, and others for allegedly destroying evidence from the scene of their son's workplace electrocution death, which occurred during a wrongful-death action against the electrical contractor Skyline. The plaintiffs asserted claims including negligence, intentional misconduct, and tortious interference based on alterations to the accident site that hindered investigation by safety officials. The district court dismissed the spoliation claims under Rule 12(b)(6), and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Utah does not recognize an independent tort of third-party spoliation of evidence under the facts of this case. The court's reasoning centered on declining to create such a cause of action for the first time here, given the availability of other remedies and the specific circumstances involving the defendants' actions after the accident.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from a negligence lawsuit in which plaintiff Denise Staley alleged that understaffing by defendant Northern Utah Healthcare at St. Mark's Hospital caused her nurse to fail to monitor her dropping blood pressure after a hysterectomy, resulting in permanent kidney damage. The discovery dispute concerned whether six other patients' medical charts, sought to assess nurse acuity and staffing decisions, were shielded by the physician-patient privilege in Utah Rule of Evidence 506. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order requiring production of the charts after redaction of all identifying information and with access restricted to attorneys and experts, holding that adequate redaction removes the records from the privilege's protection and that the acuity data was relevant both to respondeat-superior negligence and to a punitive-damages claim based on reckless understaffing. The court declined to reach an unpreserved argument that the negligent-staffing theory was duplicative of ordinary negligence.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

In this case, Commercial Debenture Corporation sued Amenti, Inc. after Amenti refused to pay CDC half the proceeds from the sale of undeveloped land to D.R. Horton, Inc., claiming entitlement under a 1997 development contract and later listing agreements. The district court, after a bench trial, rejected all of CDC's claims, finding that the development contract required subdivision into lots which never occurred due to rezoning denial, that no joint venture existed, and that an integration clause in the D.R. Horton agreement did not merge or entitle CDC to proceeds. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that CDC failed to establish a joint venture or demonstrate error in the trial court's findings regarding contract frustration and the lack of merger or integration affecting the parties' relationship.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns the scope of rights transferred in an assignment of contract claims arising from geologic engineering reports prepared for a residential property development. SDC assigned its contracts with RB & G to Enterprises before losses occurred when city regulators required design changes due to alleged deficiencies in the reports; the district court and court of appeals held that Enterprises could not recover post-assignment damages because SDC had no right to them at the time of assignment and granted summary judgment on contract and negligence claims. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that an assignee may recover damages flowing from breach of an assigned contract irrespective of when those damages arise, and remanded for further proceedings on the breach claim while declining to address certain negligence and limitations issues.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case involved Steven Clegg suing Wasatch County and Deputy Travis Jensen for negligence after Jensen's patrol car struck Clegg's vehicle while responding to an emergency with lights and siren activated. The district court granted summary judgment to the county, holding that the Utah Governmental Immunity Act barred the claims because the signals complied with statutory requirements. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding a material factual dispute over whether the audible and visual signals were adequate from 500 feet under normal conditions, which could affect immunity. The court held that constitutional challenges were not ripe until that fact was resolved, that the county's policy manual could be relevant to negligence if immunity did not apply, and that the district court's rulings on affidavits were proper.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Mark Ott, who broke into his estranged wife's home, stabbed her boyfriend and stepdaughter, set the house on fire, and caused the death of a six-year-old girl in the fire; he entered an Alford plea to aggravated murder and guilty pleas to related charges in exchange for avoiding the death penalty. A jury sentenced him to life in prison without parole. On direct appeal, Ott challenged the validity of his plea and raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; the Utah Supreme Court held that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to certain victim impact evidence at sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

Traco Steel Erectors entered into subcontracts with Comtrol to perform steel erection on two construction projects but abandoned the work after payment disputes arose. Comtrol completed the projects using its own forces and sought to recover its costs under provisions in the subcontracts, while Traco sued for unpaid amounts and Comtrol counterclaimed for damages. After a bench trial, the district court awarded Comtrol small net damages based on evidence of actual costs incurred, including wage rate data. On appeal, the court of appeals required Traco to marshal the evidence supporting the factual findings on damages but Traco did not do so, leading the court to decline review on the merits. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that challenges to the evidence underlying the damages calculation are factual issues requiring marshaling and that the trial court's method of determining reasonable costs was not erroneous as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Worthen, the defendant faced ten counts of aggravated sexual abuse of his adopted teenage daughter and subpoenaed her mental health records from a period of inpatient and outpatient treatment, arguing they would reveal her emotional condition, cognitive issues, and motive to fabricate allegations due to hatred of her adoptive parents in order to be removed from the home. The defendant conceded the records were privileged under rule 506 but claimed they fell under the exception in rule 506(d)(1) because the victim's mental or emotional condition was an element of his defense, and the district court ordered in camera review. The State sought interlocutory review, contending the defendant had not sufficiently alleged the condition as an element of the defense, that impeachment evidence could not qualify, and that he failed to show to a reasonable certainty the records contained favorable exculpatory material. The court of appeals affirmed the district court, and on certiorari the Utah Supreme Court analyzed the requirements of the privilege exception, including the need for an independent showing that the condition is an element of the claim or defense separate from the reasonable certainty test for exculpatory content.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a challenge by the State of Utah to a district court's restitution order in a negligent homicide case stemming from a fatal car accident caused by Trenton Jones falling asleep at the wheel. The district court awarded about $3,355 in restitution for medical, funeral, and property damages but denied the request for nearly $573,000 in lost future wages. The Utah Supreme Court held that the district judge erred by failing to determine "complete restitution" as required by the Crime Victims Restitution Act, though the court-ordered restitution portion was lawful, and granted limited relief to require the determination of complete restitution. The decision was influenced by a prior civil settlement and release between the victim's widow and the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

In O'Dea v. Olea, Cody O'Dea appealed the district court's dismissal of his petition to establish paternity over a child born to Ashley Olea, who had relinquished the child for adoption in Utah through the Adoption Center of Choice. The court found that O'Dea had been notified the mother was in Utah yet failed to strictly comply with the registration and notice requirements of Utah Code section 78-30-4.14, thereby waiving any rights to assert paternity, receive notice, or consent to the adoption. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the constitutional, choice-of-law, and jurisdictional issues raised were not preserved in the district court and that the statute mandates strict compliance for an unmarried putative father to maintain rights. The court held that O'Dea's registration in Wyoming and Montana and other actions did not satisfy Utah law.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Ryan Hoyer and his father suing the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) for negligence after DWR seized approximately 65 rubber boa snakes from Ryan's home during "Operation Slither," a criminal investigation into illegal reptile possession; most snakes died while held as evidence, and the Hoyers sought damages. The district court granted DWR summary judgment on grounds of governmental immunity, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed after addressing procedural matters including the timeliness of the appeal and a motion to amend the brief. The court held that DWR retained immunity under Utah Code section 63-30d-301(5)(e) because the snakes' deaths arose out of the institution or prosecution of judicial proceedings (the search warrant and criminal conviction for unlawful possession), rejecting the argument that immunity required showing the snakes were actually used as evidence at trial. The core reasoning was that the statute contains no necessity requirement and explicitly preserves immunity for injuries arising from judicial proceedings even if malicious or without probable cause.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure