Gregory K. Orme

This case concerned whether police officers' warrantless entry into a home, prompted by a citizen report of a domestic fight, violated the Fourth Amendment and required suppression of resulting drug evidence. The court held that such a report alone does not trigger the emergency aid exception, but the entry was lawful because the officers had probable cause and faced exigent circumstances. The reasoning centered on the identified informant's tip combined with the resident's sudden, unexplained retreat inside after speaking with officers, which heightened suspicion and justified following her in, where they observed signs of assault leading to an arrest and drug discovery. The trial court's denial of the suppression motion was affirmed on these alternative grounds rather than emergency aid.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs whose vehicle was destroyed in a collision with an uninsured motorist; after the insurer initially denied their uninsured motorist property damage claim in breach of the insurance contract, the parties litigated the vehicle's value and whether consequential damages including loss-of-use and attorney fees were recoverable. The trial court awarded $900 as the net value of the vehicle based on an appraiser's NADA guidebook valuation, plus $300 in attorney fees, but denied loss-of-use damages on the ground that plaintiffs had not rented a replacement and thus incurred no out-of-pocket expense. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed with minor adjustment, holding that loss-of-use damages require credible evidence of actual loss that is reasonably ascertainable rather than mere inconvenience or potential rental cost, while upholding the valuation as supported by credible expert testimony and the fee award as based on actual expenditures.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case involved post-divorce disputes between Idrees Khan and Annette Albertsen over custody and visitation of their minor child, including multiple motions for modification and orders to show cause alleging interference with visitation rights. The trial court found Khan in contempt for willfully violating the visitation provisions of the amended decree, sentenced him to 30 days in jail (suspended), and awarded Albertsen $1,000 in attorney fees. The appellate court reversed the contempt judgment and fee award. The core reasoning was that Khan lacked adequate notice of the contempt charges to satisfy due process, given the convoluted record spanning years, prior resolutions of similar charges, and findings based partly on conduct not prohibited under the decree in effect at the time.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over access to a ten-foot-wide driveway on a narrow strip of land owned by Stephen Martin, which the neighboring Kohlers claimed provided them both a private easement and public thoroughfare rights based on historical public use dating back decades. After a bench trial, the lower court ruled that the roadway had been dedicated as a public thoroughfare through continuous public use exceeding ten years, that the Kohlers held an easement over it, and that they also possessed a prescriptive easement, ordering Martin to remove a gate he had installed. On appeal, the court affirmed the finding of a public thoroughfare under Utah Code Ann. § 27-12-89, requiring removal of the gate, but reversed the easement rulings because private prescriptive rights cannot coexist with a public dedication. It also remanded for a determination of the roadway's reasonable and necessary width rather than accepting the full fenced area. The decision rested on the trial court's factual findings of long-term public access for passage, recreation, and agriculture, which Martin did not contest, while applying precedents that treat common public use as permissive and inconsistent with individual prescriptive claims.

property

The case involved Ron Bellonio suing Salt Lake City Corporation for injuries from a trip-and-fall accident at the Salt Lake International Airport in June 1992. Bellonio's attorneys sent letters and a notice of intent to commence legal action to the airport's insurance carrier, safety officer, attorney, director, the Utah Attorney General, and the city attorney, but not to the city's mayor or council, and a complaint was filed more than one year after the incident. The trial court denied the city's motion to dismiss for noncompliance with the notice-of-claim requirements under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act, but the appellate court reversed on interlocutory appeal. The court held that the claim was barred because the statute requires strict compliance, including filing written notice with the governing body of the political subdivision within one year, and the plaintiff's service on other officials did not meet this requirement or confer jurisdiction.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Fink v. Miller, a homeowner in a Utah subdivision sued neighbors to enforce a recorded restrictive covenant requiring wood shingle roofs and to obtain an injunction against installation of fiberglass shingles. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding the roofing-material restriction unenforceable, and denied a permanent injunction. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the covenant had been abandoned because, by the relevant time, a substantial majority of completed homes had non-wood roofs, rendering uniform enforcement inequitable while leaving other covenants intact. The court also vacated a portion of the order that purported to direct the actions of a non-party architectural committee.

property

In Campbell v. Campbell, grandparents Boyd and Beverly Campbell sought court-ordered visitation rights with their five grandchildren following the death of their son, after disputes arose with the children's mother, Janet Campbell, over the extent and scheduling of visits. The trial court granted only minimal visitation, expressing doubts about the constitutionality of Utah Code Ann. § 30-5-2, which allows reasonable grandparent visitation if in the children's best interest. The Utah Court of Appeals upheld the statute's constitutionality, noting that the vast majority of courts have done so, vacated the visitation order, and remanded for further proceedings. The appellate court reasoned that the trial court's findings were facially inadequate under Rule 52(a) for meaningful review, that the court improperly allowed its constitutional concerns to skew its analysis of the best-interest standard, and that the grandparents bore the burden of proving visitation served the children's interests.

family law

The case involved whether Justin Bell had valid automobile insurance coverage from Phoenix Indemnity Insurance Company at the time of his fatal accident on August 11, 1991, despite submitting a check for the premium that was returned for insufficient funds. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bell's estate, finding that Phoenix had issued a policy on July 29 and that its August 7 cancellation notice failed to provide the required ten days' advance notice under Utah insurance law. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the policy was validly issued and the cancellation was ineffective because it did not comply with the statutory notice requirements.

business & regulatory

The case involved Gary Reed, a school district employee and member of the Davis Education Association, who sought to compel arbitration under a Professional Agreement with the Board of Education regarding insurance benefits for married couples both employed by the district. Reed argued the agreement's grievance procedure constituted an arbitration provision enforceable under the Utah Arbitration Act, while the Board contended it was merely an internal grievance process and that Reed had waived any rights. The trial court denied the motion to compel, finding a waiver, but the appellate court affirmed on different grounds. The court held that the agreement did not create an arbitration process because it lacked submission to a neutral third party, ended with a decision by the Board itself, and permitted a full appeal to court rather than limited judicial confirmation of an award. The opinion interpreted the contract language to establish only a chain-of-command grievance procedure, not arbitration.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a bartender who remained at her workplace after her shift ended to socialize and drink, then was injured several hours later when she voluntarily attempted to replace an empty beer keg without being asked or required to do so. She sought workers' compensation benefits under Utah Code Ann. § 35-1-45, claiming the injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. The Industrial Commission denied the claim, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the injury did not occur in the course of employment because it took place well after her scheduled shift, during personal activities, and was not incidental to her job duties at the time. The decision applied a correctness standard of review to the statutory interpretation and focused on the time, place, and circumstances of the incident.

labor & employment

The case was a contract dispute in which Tayco Construction Company appealed a judgment for subcontractor Raymond Sparrow after Tayco refused further payment and barred Sparrow from a Logan City water-tank project. The trial court found that the parties' multiple executed documents formed an integrated contract primarily for the sale of equipment at a total price of $85,000, with Sparrow's consulting services incidental, that Sparrow had substantially performed by delivering nearly all the equipment, and that Tayco breached by nonpayment and exclusion. The Court of Appeals affirmed because substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings on contract interpretation and performance, rendering immaterial any questions about Sparrow's Utah contractor license or personal capacity to work after an injury, and because Tayco's counterclaim for breach therefore failed.

business & regulatory

The case involved a widow's lawsuit against First Colony Life Insurance Company seeking payment of benefits under a $200,000 life insurance policy after her husband died by suicide approximately twenty-two months after the policy was issued. The trial court granted summary judgment to First Colony, ruling that the policy was neither a continuation of a prior policy from another insurer nor a replacement policy under Utah regulations. On appeal, the court affirmed the ruling that the policy was not a continuation of the earlier policy but reversed in part, holding that factual issues remained regarding whether the agent violated life insurance replacement regulations by failing to identify the prior policy, which could estop the insurer from enforcing the two-year suicide exclusion, and remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned the conviction of Gordon Dee Mickelson for forcible sexual abuse after a witness reported observing him fondling an elderly care center resident who suffered from dementia. Mickelson appealed on two grounds: the trial court's admission of the victim's statements to nurses hours later as excited utterances under Utah Rule of Evidence 803(2), and its denial of his pretrial motion for disclosure of any criminal records of the state's witnesses absent a particularized showing of good cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the evidentiary ruling but reversed on the discovery issue, concluding that the prosecution's obligations under Brady may extend to impeachment evidence in some circumstances and remanding for clarification on whether any such records existed and were improperly withheld.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the State of Utah's Office of Recovery Services petitioning to increase a child support order based on the father's increased income, following a 1984 judgment that established paternity through the defendant's affidavit. The trial court permitted the defendant to challenge paternity at a later hearing, found he was not the biological father, and declined to modify the support amount. The appellate court reversed, holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred relitigation of the paternity claim because it had been resolved in a final judgment from the original proceeding involving the same parties. The court reasoned that claim preclusion applies to consent judgments and serves important policies of finality, consistency, and protecting the child's interests in paternity determinations. The case was remanded for consideration of the modification request under the applicable guidelines.

family law

The case concerned whether defendant Jeffrey Vincent, who had entered a conditional guilty plea to a misdemeanor theft charge, qualified as indigent under Utah statutes so as to receive court-appointed counsel and county-paid transcripts for his appeal. The trial court found he was not indigent, citing his recent employment history, family living arrangements, and combined household income, and denied his request. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Vincent's current unemployment, lack of personal income, and inability to cover appellate costs without depriving his family of basic necessities rendered him impecunious. The court emphasized the constitutional right to counsel on appeal for indigent defendants and noted that prior appointment of counsel at trial did not create a presumption of indigency here.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Strickling, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a vehicle stop and inventory search that resulted in his conditional guilty plea to theft by receiving stolen stereo equipment. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, determining that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the car based on observations of two individuals acting suspiciously near a fraternity house amid reports of car burglaries, their flight, and the car's expired registration. The court further held that the subsequent inventory search, conducted after impounding the vehicle for the registration violation, complied with standardized police procedures and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Chapman’s interlocutory appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a police stop and frisk at a high school parking lot, which ultimately led to his arrest and burglary charges after officers discovered a stolen weapon. The court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. It held that the initial stop and detention were valid because the officer acted in good-faith reliance on a county loitering ordinance, regardless of any later constitutional challenge to the ordinance. The court further determined that the officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct the investigatory stop and pat-down based on the late hour, the isolated location, reports of Chapman’s prior weapon possession, and related circumstances.

criminal lawprocedureguns

In Handy v. Union Pacific Railroad, plaintiff Vivi Handy sued her employer under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) alleging that stressful working conditions as a crew dispatcher caused her emotional distress and aggravated preexisting medical conditions. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendant, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that Handy failed to prove the essential elements of negligence under FELA, including insufficient evidence that the working conditions were unreasonably stressful or that the railroad had adequate notice of her specific health concerns, and that she did not utilize grievance procedures or communicate the severity of her issues.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityfederal power

This case involves the divorce of Erin Jo Chambers and Thomas D. Chambers, a professional basketball player, focusing on the division of marital assets including future NBA contract payments and retirement benefits, as well as awards of alimony and attorney fees to Mrs. Chambers. The trial court granted the divorce, awarded alimony that decreased over time and terminated after six years, determined that future contract payments were not divisible marital property, and divided retirement benefits. On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the conclusion that future contract payments were not marital property subject to division. However, it reversed and remanded the alimony and attorney fees awards due to the trial court's insufficient factual findings on factors like the recipient's employability and the justification for reductions. It also reversed and remanded the retirement benefits division, directing reconsideration under a preferred method that values the non-employee spouse's share and satisfies it from other assets to allow a clean break.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved a divorced couple disputing the enforcement of child support provisions from their 1986 decree, which included a marital agreement for automatic adjustments based on income changes. The ex-wife sought to increase support and obtain income information via an order to show cause, while the ex-husband argued this required a formal petition to modify the decree under Utah court rules. The Court of Appeals of Utah vacated the district court's orders, which had granted increased support retroactively and denied the motion to strike, because the automatic adjustment clause directly conflicted with Utah Code Ann. § 78-45-7(1) requiring a material change in circumstances for any modification of support. The court reasoned that the parties could not stipulate around the statutory requirement, so the ex-wife's action improperly bypassed the petition process.

family lawprocedure