Jill Niederhauser Parrish

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.

family lawhealthcarecivil rightsprocedure

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.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryproperty

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.

proceduretorts & liability

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.

family lawfederal powerprocedure

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.

family lawprocedure

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.

procedurecivil rights

In this medical malpractice case, Lonnie Eskelson sued Dr. Jonathan Apfelbaum on behalf of his minor son Jacob, claiming that the doctor perforated the child's eardrum while attempting to remove a bead from his ear at Davis Hospital. The district court excluded the plaintiffs' expert testimony from Dr. Kim Bateman under Utah Rule of Evidence 702, finding it unreliable and not based on sufficient facts or data, then granted summary judgment to the defendants for lack of expert evidence on the standard of care. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that Dr. Bateman's specialized knowledge was reliable, drawn from facts in evidence, and properly applied to the case, satisfying the requirements of Rule 702(b) for admissibility. The court reasoned that the expert's opinions on informed consent, stopping the procedure when the child became agitated, and avoiding unnecessary pain were grounded in his experience and the record, so the trial court erred in striking the testimony and dismissing the claims.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The Petersens appealed Riverton City's denial of their application to rezone a 20.84-acre parcel from RR-22 to R-3 to enable higher-density development and sale to a builder. The district court granted summary judgment to the city, applying the reasonably debatable standard to uphold the council's decision as a valid legislative act. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that decisions to grant or deny rezoning applications are legislative in nature and thus reviewed under the reasonably debatable standard rather than substantial evidence. The court also affirmed dismissal of the Petersens' equal protection and due process claims, finding no evidence of malice or a protected property interest in the rezoning, and upheld the denial of their request for additional discovery.

propertyprocedure

Several Utah counties appealed the Utah State Tax Commission's 2003 property tax valuation of T-Mobile's Utah assets directly to the state Supreme Court, while T-Mobile pursued a separate de novo review in district court acting as a tax court. After the tax court issued a final lower valuation, T-Mobile moved to dismiss the Supreme Court appeal under newly effective Rule 15 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Supreme Court held that Rule 15, which addresses the effect of a subsequent tax court decision on an administrative appeal, applies retroactively because it is a procedural rule that does not enlarge or eliminate any vested substantive rights. As a result, the court dismissed the counties' appeal without reaching its merits, noting that the Tax Commission's original decision had become a nullity.

taxesprocedure

Warren Jeffs was convicted of two counts of rape as an accomplice for his role in arranging and performing the marriage of fourteen-year-old Elissa Wall to her nineteen-year-old cousin Allen Steed, which resulted in nonconsensual sexual intercourse between them. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the jury instructions were erroneous because they failed to properly require proof that Jeffs intended for the underlying rape offense to occur and that he intentionally aided the principal actor, and because they inadequately addressed the element of lack of consent in the context of accomplice liability. The court concluded that these instructional errors deprived Jeffs of a fair trial.

criminal lawfamily law

Francisco Candedo pled guilty to three felonies arising from a fraudulent investment scheme and received a suspended prison sentence plus nine years of probation to facilitate restitution payments. On appeal, he challenged the probation term as violating substantive due process under the Utah and U.S. Constitutions, arguing it could be reviewed despite not being preserved below. The Utah Supreme Court held that rule 22(e) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure permitted reaching the merits of the constitutional claim, but concluded that the probation statute was rationally related to legitimate state interests including restitution and therefore did not violate due process.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned a dispute over an Interlocal Agreement among Tooele County entities and the City of Grantsville for the redevelopment of former Tooele Army Depot property, under which the Redevelopment Agency of Tooele City acquired title to the land for economic reuse pursuant to a Base Reuse Plan. Grantsville sued, claiming breach of contract and related duties because the property was sold for $15 million with proceeds used solely for Tooele City's benefit rather than shared or developed regionally. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, but the Utah Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that a material fact issue existed as to whether the Agreement was integrated and thus whether extrinsic evidence could support Grantsville's contractual claims, while affirming dismissal of the non-contractual claims such as breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Neldon Johnson's motion under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to vacate a 2001 divorce decree ending his marriage to Ina Johnson, arguing that the original court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the parties were never legally married despite stipulating otherwise in the divorce proceeding. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion, holding that district courts possess subject matter jurisdiction over divorce actions as a class of civil cases regardless of whether a valid marriage actually existed. The court overruled its prior decision in Caffall v. Caffall, reasoning that the existence of a marriage goes to the merits of the claim rather than the court's fundamental authority to adjudicate divorce disputes, and that parties cannot collaterally attack decrees on this basis after the fact.

family lawprocedure

The case involved landowners, the Osguthorpes, seeking to evict Wolf Mountain Resorts and American Skiing Company from their property using Utah's unlawful detainer statute after disputes over land use agreements for ski operations and ranching. The district court dismissed the claims, finding uncertainty about whether the defendants were tenants in possession. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that as a matter of law, the parties were not tenants in possession under the statute because the restated agreement created an easement with shared use rights rather than a traditional lease, making unlawful detainer unavailable. Wolf Mountain's cross-claims were also dismissed.

propertyprocedure

Rocky Mountain Power filed a complaint with the Utah Public Service Commission alleging that Heber Light & Power, a municipal interlocal entity, was providing electrical service in violation of Rocky Mountain's exclusive certificate in the Heber Valley area. Heber Light moved to dismiss, arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction because it was not a public utility, but the Commission denied the motion and asserted authority to determine the scope of Heber Light's service outside municipal boundaries. The Utah Supreme Court held that the Commission's order was not final agency action and thus not reviewable on direct appeal, but granted extraordinary relief and reversed, concluding that the Commission has no statutory authority to regulate Heber Light even when it sells nonsurplus power beyond municipal limits. The court reasoned that municipalities and interlocal entities are governmental bodies exempt from Commission oversight absent express legislative delegation, and any claim that Heber Light exceeded its statutory authority to sell only surplus power must be brought in district court instead.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the heirs of Sharon Stamper suing Rebecca Johnson for wrongful death based on negligent driving in a 2005 car accident that occurred while both women were traveling for work at the direction of their common owners. Stamper's estate had already received workers' compensation benefits through her employer, Gilbert Development, and the district court granted summary judgment to Johnson on the ground that the exclusive-remedy provision of the Utah Workers' Compensation Act barred the suit under the fellow-servant doctrine. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the 1975 statutory amendments removed the "same employment" language that had previously incorporated the fellow-servant doctrine, so the exclusivity analysis now requires determining instead whether Johnson was acting as an officer, agent, or employee of Stamper's employer at the time of the accident. The court remanded for further proceedings on that question.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

Kipp Cabaness sued his supervisors Brent Thomas and Clifford Michaelis for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on alleged workplace harassment and intimidation, and sued his employer Bountiful City Power for breach of contract and wrongful termination, relying on provisions in the city's employee manual that prohibited harassment and created certain procedures. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims and denied Cabaness's post-judgment motions. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that governmental immunity under the Governmental Immunity Act did not bar the contract-based claims, that the employee manual could create enforceable obligations limiting at-will employment in some respects, and that material factual disputes precluded summary judgment on certain issues.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Friends of Great Salt Lake challenging the Utah Department of Natural Resources and Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands' decision to lease over 23,000 acres of Great Salt Lake bedlands in Clyman Bay to a mineral extraction company and to permit expansions of existing operations in Clyman Bay and Bear River Bay. Friends filed petitions alleging that the agency failed to properly apply the public trust doctrine in its site-specific planning and leasing decisions. The agency dismissed the petitions without a hearing, finding procedural and legal deficiencies in Friends' filings. The Utah Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the agency's order did not arise from a formal adjudicative proceeding as required by statute for direct supreme court review, and that a petition for extraordinary relief did not confer jurisdiction over the claims.

environmentpropertyprocedure

In State v. Baker, the defendant, a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a broken taillight, moved to suppress methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia found during a frisk after a drug dog sniff indicated the presence of narcotics. The district court denied the motion, but the court of appeals reversed, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The court held that the officers improperly extended the traffic stop by conducting the dog sniff, though the evidence from that search was not excluded due to the officers' good-faith reliance on then-settled precedent. However, the frisk of the defendant was unconstitutional because the officers lacked an objectively reasonable belief that he was armed and dangerous, as they had testified they had no fear for their safety and the passengers had been cooperative.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Gettling, a backseat passenger appealed the denial of his motion to suppress methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia discovered in his belongings after police conducted a dog sniff and search of the vehicle following the driver's arrest for outstanding warrants during a traffic stop. The court determined that the continued detention of the passenger was unlawful once the purpose of the stop concluded, as the search incident to the driver's arrest did not meet the requirements later established in Arizona v. Gant and the officers lacked independent reasonable suspicion of the passenger's involvement in criminal activity. Nevertheless, the court upheld the denial of the suppression motion by applying the federal good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, reasoning that the officers had relied on settled pre-Gant precedent authorizing vehicle searches incident to arrest.

criminal lawprocedure