Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
State v. All Real Property
Court of Appeals of Utah · 2004-07-09 · cited 5×
This case involves Bruce Petersen appealing the denial of his second motion under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside a default judgment that forfeited his interest in real property at 736 North Colorado Street in Salt Lake City. The property was subject to state forfeiture proceedings under Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-13 after Petersen’s federal drug convictions for offenses linked to activities on the property. The State served the forfeiture complaint and notice by certified mail, which Petersen did not accept, leading to the default judgment; Petersen argued that personal service under Rule 4 was required and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial, holding that Petersen waived his claim of insufficient service of the complaint by failing to raise it in his first 60(b) motion, as required by procedural rules analogous to those governing personal jurisdiction and capacity defenses. The court reviewed the issue for correctness and rejected related due process arguments as unpreserved.
criminal lawpropertyprocedure
State v. Martinez
Court of Appeals of Utah · 2002-04-25 · cited 2×
In State v. Martinez, the defendant appealed his convictions for aggravated burglary and murder arising from a 1999 home invasion in which two armed men entered a residence, struggled with and shot the victim Matthew Moya, and fled in a green Cadillac getaway car. The court affirmed the convictions after reviewing challenges to the reliability of an eyewitness identification of Martinez as the driver, the denial of a mistrial motion, and the sufficiency of the evidence. It held that the photo-spread identification procedure was not unduly suggestive and met constitutional reliability standards under State v. Ramirez and related precedents, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the mistrial, and that the evidence, including the predicate aggravated burglary leading to the death, was sufficient to support both convictions.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Parra
Court of Appeals of Utah · 1998-12-24 · cited 10×
In State v. Parra, the defendant appealed convictions for three counts of aggravated assault, carrying a concealed dangerous weapon used in a crime of violence, and criminal mischief arising from a drive-by shooting on Interstate 15 in which shots were fired at the victims' vehicle from the defendant's car. The court affirmed all convictions, ruling that the warrantless search of the vehicle was lawful because exigent circumstances existed due to the car's mobility, the occupants' awareness of police, and safety risks from discovered ammunition combined with the reported shooting. It also held that the victim's on-scene identification was reliable and did not violate due process, and that the trial court correctly denied lesser-included-offense instructions because the evidence provided no rational basis for convictions on those lesser charges.
criminal lawgunsprocedure
Rackley v. Fairview Care Centers, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Utah · 1998-12-17 · cited 6×
The case involved Cathleen Rackley suing her former employer Fairview Care Centers for wrongful termination after she informed a nursing home resident about an incoming check, contrary to the resident's family's wishes. The trial court ruled in Rackley's favor, finding the termination violated a public policy requiring residents to be informed of personal funds. On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding that no clear and substantial public policy existed under state or federal law that would protect such conduct in an at-will employment context. The court reasoned that while at-will employment can be overcome by public policy exceptions, the specific policy alleged here—immediate notification of funds—was too narrow and not supported by the cited constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions.
labor & employmenthealthcare
State v. Ellis
Court of Appeals of Utah · 1998-11-13 · cited 6×
The case involved defendant Kenneth Ellis appealing his conviction for theft from a person, a second-degree felony. Ellis and his co-defendant Tommy Carter were both convicted after the trial court denied a motion to continue the trial to investigate newly discovered evidence. In a prior appeal by Carter, the court had reversed the conviction, finding the denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion that prejudiced the defendant. Applying the law of the case doctrine, the court here concluded it was bound by that prior decision on the identical issue and therefore reversed and remanded Ellis's conviction.
criminal lawprocedure
Julian v. Petersen
Court of Appeals of Utah · 1998-10-08 · cited 7×
This case involved a quiet title action over property originally held by Ms. Julian and her brother as joint tenants. In 1969, Ms. Julian executed a quitclaim deed conveying her interest to her brother, but the deed was later altered without her consent to add his wife as an additional grantee before being recorded; the brother later attempted to affirm the wife's interest via affidavit after her death and then reconveyed the property to himself and Ms. Julian as joint tenants. The trial court granted summary judgment to Ms. Julian, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the post-delivery alteration did not void the original deed or divest the brother's vested title, but that the alteration and affidavit failed to convey any interest to the wife because the deed was not properly executed or delivered by the brother as grantor and the affidavit was recorded after her death, rendering it void. As a result, full title vested in Ms. Julian upon the brother's death. The court reviewed the matter de novo under summary judgment standards and could affirm on alternative grounds.
property