This case arose from a dispute between the Jensen parents and Utah state actors over the medical treatment of their son Parker for a suspected cancerous growth, after a doctor reported the parents for medical neglect when they sought additional confirmation of the diagnosis before starting chemotherapy. The Jensens sued various state officials and employees, alleging violations of their state and federal constitutional rights to direct their child's medical care. After federal claims were dismissed and state claims remanded, the state district court dismissed the remaining claims on collateral estoppel grounds. The Utah Supreme Court held that collateral estoppel did not apply but affirmed dismissal on alternative grounds, ruling that two defendants had absolute immunity and that the claims against the others failed as a matter of law because the facts did not show a flagrant violation of the Jensens' state constitutional rights.
The case concerned whether Tooele City's civil inspection fee, set at 4 percent of the bonded cost of improvements, constituted an unconstitutional tax under the Utah Constitution when charged to a large development project. The district court ruled the fee invalid, focusing on the city's lack of historical data and its reliance on surveys of other municipalities when establishing the fee. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the constitutionality of such a fee turns on whether the amount charged reasonably relates to the actual costs of performing inspections across the regulated activity, not on the specific procedures used to calculate the fee. Expert evidence presented at trial showed that inspection costs exceeded fee revenues over a multi-year period, supporting the conclusion that the fee was reasonable and not a tax.
In Jensen v. Young, Dr. Michael Jensen sued attorney Allen Young for legal malpractice, claiming Young failed to file defamation claims against a television station within the one-year statute of limitations, resulting in dismissal of those claims in an underlying suit. The district court granted summary judgment to Young, ruling that Jensen's malpractice claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the discovery rule did not apply to toll the limitations period because Jensen knew or should have known of his injury and possible cause of action when his defamation claims were dismissed and he incurred additional legal fees defending against the motion, which occurred years before he filed suit against Young.
This case involved the Utah Division of Child and Family Services removing Indian children from their grandfather's custody in abuse and neglect proceedings governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), raising questions about compliance with the Act's active efforts and placement preference requirements. The Utah Supreme Court held that the issues of appellate jurisdiction and ICWA compliance were moot because the children had subsequently been placed with their biological fathers. The court reasoned that these placements eliminated any ongoing controversy regarding further active efforts or relative placements, declined to apply the public-interest exception to mootness as the questions would not necessarily evade review in future cases, and declined to vacate the court of appeals' opinion.
This case concerned the State of Utah's removal of Indian children from their grandfather's custody after findings of abuse and the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to those proceedings. The juvenile court ruled that prior active efforts satisfied ICWA requirements and that further efforts were not needed, while directing relative or tribal placements; the court of appeals affirmed jurisdiction over the issues and addressed compliance. After the children were subsequently placed with their biological fathers, the Utah Supreme Court determined that questions of appellate jurisdiction and ICWA active efforts and placement rules had become moot. The court therefore dismissed the petitions for certiorari as moot without reaching the merits and declined to vacate the court of appeals' opinion.
Ryan McBride challenged the Utah State Bar's decision to disqualify him from the bar exam after he failed to upload his typed essay answers by the 10:00 p.m. deadline on the first day of testing. McBride argued that the disqualification violated his rights to procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection, and that the Bar applied the wrong rule or an unreasonable one. The Utah Supreme Court held that the Bar's actions were constitutional, as McBride had received multiple notifications of the deadline and its consequences, and denied his requests to waive the exam requirement or compel grading of his answers.
