Aldon Junior Anderson

The case involved a Florida resident, Christina Ghionis, who was injured while skiing at Deer Valley Resort after renting bindings and skis; the bindings were incompatible with her boots, contrary to advice from the rental shop technician, and failed to release when she fell in crud snow during a lesson. She sued for negligence, product liability, and breach of warranties. Deer Valley moved for summary judgment based on a signed release agreement, the Utah Inherent Risks of Skiing Act, and its status as an equipment lessor rather than a manufacturer or seller. The court denied the motion, finding the release ambiguous and unenforceable to bar the claims, that the Act did not preclude suits involving rented equipment or inadequate instruction, and that lessors can be subject to strict liability for defects in products they place into the stream of commerce.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between WKB Enterprises, which provided letters of credit to secure equipment leases from Ruan Leasing Company to a third party (Conway), and Ruan, after Conway defaulted and Ruan drew on the letters by certifying delinquency in lease payments. WKB sued Ruan for fraud, defamation, and unjust enrichment, claiming the letters were intended only for a future lease between WKB and Ruan, not the Conway lease, and that Ruan's demands to the banks were deceptive. The court denied WKB's motion for summary judgment and granted Ruan's motion, dismissing all claims. It reasoned that the bank could not have reasonably relied on Ruan's statements for a fraud claim, that defamation per se was unsupported without special damages given the known circumstances of the transaction, and that unjust enrichment was unavailable because WKB had not exhausted its legal remedies by pursuing a contract claim.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In TEP and KJC v. Leavitt, the plaintiffs challenged Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-2(1), which prohibited and voided marriages involving persons with AIDS. The court granted the defendants' unopposed motion for summary judgment, declaring the statute invalid as applied to AIDS and enjoining its enforcement. The decision rested on the finding that the law violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as AIDS qualifies as a disability under these federal statutes, and federal law preempts conflicting state law under the Supremacy Clause. The court also validated the marriages of the affected classes from their inception.

civil rightsfamily lawfederal powerhealthcare

This case involves plaintiff C. Scott Wolt's motion to disqualify the law firm Snow, Christensen & Martineau from representing defendants Sherwood Corporation and Manchester Tank & Equipment Corporation in a personal injury lawsuit. Wolt had previously settled related state court claims against Petrolane Gas Service, with the settlement terms allegedly including a restriction preventing Petrolane's cause-and-origin experts from being made available to Sherwood's counsel. The court found that the settlement likely included this expert witness limitation and that Petrolane may have breached it by approving the firm's representation of Sherwood, but concluded that these facts did not compel disqualification of Sherwood's chosen counsel. The decision rested on the principle that the settlement agreement did not override a party's right to select its own attorney in the absence of a direct ethical violation requiring disqualification under applicable rules.

proceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Sandoval, the defendant moved to suppress cocaine found during a vehicle search and statements made after his arrest, arguing that a Utah Highway Patrol traffic stop for speeding was a pretext, that he was illegally detained, that his consent to search was not voluntary or was exceeded in scope, and that no Miranda warning was given. The court denied suppression of the cocaine, finding the stop legitimate based on observed speeding, that the officer's actions after returning the license and registration were supported by reasonable suspicion from the defendant's evasive answers and prior record, and that the defendant's consent to search the vehicle and fuel tank was voluntary and not limited. However, the court granted suppression of the post-arrest statements made before the Miranda warning. The reasoning centered on Fourth Amendment standards for pretextual stops, reasonable suspicion, consent, and the timing of custody requiring Miranda protections.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case concerns a motion to withdraw the reference from bankruptcy court to the district court in an adversary proceeding filed by the Chapter 7 trustee against Jean Bob Inc. The trustee sought damages for breach of a management agreement related to a nightclub and turnover of a $10,000 certificate of deposit under 11 U.S.C. § 542. Jean Bob demanded a jury trial, declined consent to final judgment by the bankruptcy court, and asserted a setoff as a defense based on alleged violations and conversions by the prior trustee. The court analyzed whether it must await the bankruptcy court's core/non-core determination under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3) before deciding withdrawal and whether pleading setoff waived Jean Bob's Seventh Amendment jury trial right, considering distinctions between setoffs, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses under bankruptcy rules like Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7013.

procedurefederal power

In Bridgewaters v. Toro Co., plaintiff Corinne Bridgewaters sued defendant Toro Company for product liability after a rock ejected from her used Toro lawnmower struck and blinded her left eye in April 1989. Toro moved for summary judgment, arguing that the suit filed in December 1991 was barred by Utah’s two-year product liability statute of limitations under Utah Code Ann. § 78-15-3. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding when the limitations period began to run. Specifically, the opinion notes that Bridgewaters may not have discovered the alleged defect—a broken plastic latch on the grass ejection door—until an inspection in April 1990, potentially making the claim timely under either the two-year or a longer four-year statute. The decision emphasizes that summary judgment is inappropriate where reasonable inferences from the facts could allow a jury to find the suit was filed within the applicable period.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns Provo City police officers enrolled in the Public Safety Retirement System who sued the city and its employees, alleging that the city violated a 1985 municipal ordinance by failing to make equal employer retirement contributions on overtime compensation compared to other employees, and asserting a related claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants moved for summary judgment, raising defenses including statutes of limitations, absence of a constitutional violation for the federal claim, governmental immunity under Utah law, and failure to post the required undertaking when suing a governmental entity. The court examined the factual background showing that the retirement system rejected overtime contributions, which the city then ceased attempting to pay for these plaintiffs while making them for others in a different system, and analyzed timeliness based on when plaintiffs received pay stubs and statements indicating the contributions. Core reasoning addressed whether claims accrued upon awareness of the discrepancy or earlier, the scope of § 1983 relative to state-law equivalents, and procedural requirements like the undertaking that applies only to state claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

Wayne Thompson, an African-American radio disk jockey, sued his former employer Price Broadcasting Co. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that his termination was due to racial discrimination after he had previously filed a similar suit against another station. The case centered on Thompson's refusal to report for a Sunday shift during hazardous weather conditions, leading his supervisor to fire him for unreliability. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the defendant, finding that Thompson failed to prove any discriminatory intent or that race played a role in the decision. The ruling emphasized that the evidence showed the discharge resulted from a conflict over attendance expectations rather than retaliation or bias, with no direct or circumstantial proof linking the action to Thompson's race or prior lawsuit.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved Joseph T. Agbor, a black man of Nigerian descent employed as a part-time meter reader, who sued Mountain Fuel Supply Co. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging that he was denied promotions to full-time meter reader and drafter positions because of his race and national origin. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claim. The core reasoning was that Agbor had misrepresented his U.S. citizenship and work authorization status on his employment application, and the employer offered uncontroverted evidence that it would not have hired him or would have terminated him if it had known the truth, which under Summers v. State Farm barred any Title VII relief irrespective of the discrimination claims.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved a challenge by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance to decisions by the U.S. Forest Service authorizing animal damage control programs, including lethal predator control methods such as aerial gunning and denning, in the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests to protect livestock from coyotes and other predators. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits under the APA and NEPA, as the administrative record supported the need for and effectiveness of the programs, showed that reasonable alternatives were considered, and confirmed that cumulative environmental impacts were adequately analyzed. The balance of harms also favored the defendants and livestock permittees over the plaintiffs' interests.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In United States v. McKneely, defendants were charged with possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime after a traffic stop on Interstate 70 resulted in the seizure of approximately one pound of crack cocaine and a loaded gun. The court granted the defendants' motion to suppress the physical evidence but denied their motion to suppress statements. The core reasoning was that the officer unreasonably extended the traffic stop beyond its original scope without reasonable suspicion, that any consent to search was invalid, and that the subsequent warrant was not supported by probable cause because the chemical odor and other cited factors did not establish a sufficient basis.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs from Illinois who invested in speculative over-the-counter stocks through defendant Karl Nelson, a securities salesperson, and suffered substantial losses. The plaintiffs alleged violations of federal securities law under Rule 10b-5, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty based on Nelson's representations about the investments and the handling of their accounts. The court decided in favor of the defendants, finding no actionable misrepresentations under Rule 10b-5, no justifiable reliance by the plaintiffs after receiving account statements, and no fiduciary duty owed by Nelson to the plaintiffs in non-discretionary accounts. The core reasoning was that Nelson made no material misrepresentations regarding the stocks or the EAC public offering, the investments were speculative as understood, and under Utah law, no confidential relationship created a fiduciary duty in this context.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Worden v. Provo City, a former police officer sued Provo City and Police Chief Swen Nielsen under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the department violated his constitutional right to privacy by publishing details of his resignation in an internal newsletter and that the defendants blacklisted him from future law enforcement jobs in violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights and Utah law. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On the privacy claim, the court held that Worden lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the circumstances of his resignation because the information was already known within the department and the publication served a legitimate administrative purpose of maintaining morale. On the blacklisting claim, the court found that Worden failed to present sufficient probative evidence beyond his own affidavit to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Nielsen had provided negative references to prospective employers.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns a bankruptcy appeal in which the debtor SLC Limited V moved to disqualify the law firm representing creditor Bradford Group West, Inc., due to a conflict of interest from an attorney who joined the firm after previously representing the debtor's general partner in related loan matters. The bankruptcy court allowed the firm to continue with screening measures isolating the attorney, which the debtor appealed. The district court reviewed the applicable professional conduct rules and precedent on imputed disqualification and Chinese walls to determine the appropriateness of continued representation.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Sherwin Watkins, a long-term employee at General Refractories, who was terminated in 1990 as part of a company-wide reduction in force and sued over the circumstances of his layoff and post-termination issues. Watkins alleged breach of an implied employment contract based on company policies requiring notice and a hearing, entitlement to commissions and rights in inventions, defamation and tortious interference with his job prospects at another company, invasion of privacy via false light, and disputes over vacation pay and a company car lease. The court dismissed the contract, commissions, inventions, defamation, interference, and false light claims as a matter of law, finding that Watkins was an at-will employee whose layoff complied with the applicable procedures, that the defamation claim was time-barred, that statements were made for a legitimate purpose, and that false light required broader publication than occurred. The vacation benefits and automobile lease claims were allowed to proceed to trial.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

In Anderson v. Alpine City, developers sued the city and its officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging that the city arbitrarily delayed approvals, imposed excessive off-site improvement requirements and fees, and treated their lower-cost housing projects worse than others, violating the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause as well as Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and related claims without prejudice. It held that the federal constitutional claims were not ripe under Tenth Circuit precedent because the plaintiffs had not obtained a final decision from the city or pursued available state remedies such as inverse condemnation, and it declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

business & regulatorycivil rightspropertyprocedure

In Zollman v. Myers, plaintiff Esther Zollman sued High Country Snowmobile and another rider for negligence after she was injured in a collision while operating a rented snowmobile at High Country’s recreation park; both riders had signed release agreements purporting to waive claims against High Country even for its own negligence. High Country moved for summary judgment on the basis that the releases constituted an enforceable express assumption of risk, while Zollman cross-moved for partial summary judgment arguing the releases were unenforceable as a matter of law. The court denied both motions, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained and that the release language was ambiguous regarding the scope of assumed risks and the effect of the company’s instructions, precluding resolution on summary judgment under Rule 56 standards and Utah contract principles. The opinion applies federal summary-judgment rules to a diversity case governed by Utah law on exculpatory agreements in recreational settings.

proceduretorts & liability

In Richards v. United States, the plaintiff filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or correct his 188-month sentence for possession with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, contending that the court had improperly calculated his base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines by using the total weight of a liquid mixture containing only trace amounts of the drug rather than the actual marketable quantity. The court granted the motion after determining that its initial sentencing, which followed the guidelines footnote requiring the entire mixture weight and prior Tenth Circuit precedent like United States v. Dorrough, was erroneous based on subsequent interpretations such as Chapman v. United States that exclude the weight of unusable waste byproducts. The core reasoning focused on properly construing 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to apply only to mixtures containing a detectable but usable amount of methamphetamine.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over lien priority on proceeds from the sale of a hotel that was part of a bankruptcy estate under Chapter 7. Iron County claimed first-priority liens based on ad valorem property taxes assessed for 1986 and 1987, while First American Savings Bank and other creditors asserted priority through a 1983 trust deed. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the county's post-petition tax liens were subordinate. The core reasoning was that under Utah law, such tax liens attach only on January 1 of the tax year and thus did not create a pre-petition interest perfectible after filing; the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(4) barred creation or perfection of post-petition liens, and no exception under § 546(b) applied.

taxespropertyprocedure