Dee Vance Benson

The case involves approximately 5,000 members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints suing Utah and Arizona state officials over their reformation and administration of the United Effort Plan Trust, a communal property arrangement rooted in the church's religious doctrines of consecration. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, claiming the officials' actions violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment by entangling government with religious practices. The court framed the core issue as whether the trust reforms had a secular purpose and effect or instead advanced or inhibited religion, citing precedents such as Lemon v. Kurtzman and cases involving displays or accommodations with religious elements. The opinion reviewed the historical background of the FLDS church, polygamy laws, and the trust's origins but did not reach a final ruling on the motion in the excerpted portion.

religious libertycivil rightsproperty

The case involved the tragic accidental death of high school student Tucker Thayer, who shot himself with a blank-firing handgun during rehearsals for the play Oklahoma at Desert Hills High School. His parents sued drama teacher Michael Eaton, vice principal Robert Goulding, and the Washington County School District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of substantive due process under the state-created danger doctrine, as well as procedural due process, familial association, and equal protection. The court granted judgment on the pleadings to Goulding and the school district on all claims and to Eaton on all claims except the danger creation theory, finding insufficient allegations of deliberate conduct or personal animus for the other claims but enough facts to proceed against Eaton on whether he recklessly disregarded obvious risks by allowing the student to handle the gun contrary to agreed safety rules.

civil rightsprocedure

This case is a bankruptcy appeal concerning ownership of the domain name freecreditscore.com in the proceedings of debtor Steve Paige. The Bankruptcy Court ruled after trial that the domain was owned personally by Paige, not by his LLC, and awarded it to the liquidating trustee and Consumerinfo.com. The District Court affirmed that judgment, relying on registration records, payment history, and other facts showing personal ownership at the time of pre- and post-petition transfers. The court also considered but did not resolve cross-appeals on damages and a suggestion of mootness, treating the ownership ruling as an alternative basis for affirmance.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's confirmation of one Chapter 11 plan and denial of a competing plan in the bankruptcy of Steve Zimmer Paige, which centered on the estate's rights to a valuable internet domain name that had been transferred without the trustee's knowledge. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling confirming the joint plan proposed by the Chapter 11 trustee and ConsumerInfo.com, which provided for full payment to creditors through sale of the domain name interest. The court found that the joint plan met all applicable requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a), including the absolute priority rule under the fair and equitable standard of § 1129(b), based on the evidence in the record. Because § 1129(c) permits confirmation of only one plan, the court concluded it was unnecessary to decide whether SMDI's competing plan was confirmable.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned whether Wilshire Insurance Company was obligated to pay on an MCS-90 endorsement attached to Espenschied Transport's liability policy for a consent judgment stemming from a fatal highway accident caused by a wheel detaching from a leased trailer. The plaintiffs, the Herrod family, had settled wrongful death claims with both Espenschied and DATS Trucking (the tractor owner), receiving payments from DATS's insurers, and then sought the MCS-90 limits directly from Wilshire after Espenschied assigned its claims. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied Wilshire's, holding that the endorsement was triggered by the consent judgment against Espenschied as a motor carrier accused of negligence, that the leasing arrangement and prior settlement with another carrier did not alter this obligation, and that Wilshire could seek reimbursement afterward from Espenschied or others if appropriate.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Kee v. R-G Crown Bank, the plaintiff, after losing multiple prior lawsuits including a consolidated RESPA action, filed claims challenging the validity and enforceability of his mortgage note and trust deed in an effort to halt non-judicial foreclosure proceedings by Fifth Third Bank (successor to R-G Crown) and related parties. The court granted the defendants' motions for injunction, barring the plaintiff from direct contact with defendants or their agents, requiring continued representation by his attorney, and denying his motion to withdraw counsel. All claims were dismissed on grounds including issue preclusion from prior adjudications on the note's validity, failure to state a claim, lack of Article III standing for alleged statutory violations, and violation of an earlier court order enjoining re-litigation of the same issues.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute between attorneys Charles Abbott and Patrick Mulligan over a written fee-sharing agreement for referring and handling Fen-Phen diet-drug litigation clients, under which Abbott claimed unpaid fees and Mulligan counterclaimed that Abbott had breached an exclusive referral arrangement by retaining clients himself. After initial federal court proceedings, the parties arbitrated the claims before an AAA panel, which found the agreement exclusive, awarded Mulligan roughly $5.7 million in net damages based on lost profits, and credited Abbott for over $1 million in withheld fees. Abbott moved to vacate the award, arguing the panel manifestly disregarded Utah law requiring deduction of saved expenses in lost-profit calculations, while Mulligan sought confirmation and collection. The court denied vacatur, confirmed the award in part, denied entry of final judgment on remaining claims, and granted a protective order staying collection efforts. It reasoned that the Federal Arbitration Act permits vacatur only for narrow, egregious misconduct such as fraud or corruption, not for alleged errors in interpreting or applying substantive law.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between former ClearOne CEO Frances Flood and the company over the terms of their Employment Separation Agreement (ESA), under which ClearOne agreed to indemnify Flood and advance her reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in connection with an SEC civil action and related criminal proceedings stemming from alleged financial misstatements. After initially paying Flood's defense costs, ClearOne ceased payments, citing its bylaws' requirements that the board determine expenses were reasonable and a proper use of corporate resources. Flood sued for breach of the ESA and other claims, moving for summary judgment on her request for continued advancement of fees. The court granted Flood's summary judgment motion on the advancement claim, holding that the ESA created an enforceable obligation for ClearOne to pay reasonable defense costs without allowing after-the-fact determinations that would deprive Flood of the agreement's benefits or render the obligation illusory, and it dismissed Flood's other contract-based claims as addressed by the ESA.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned non-Native American practitioners of Native American religions who faced federal criminal charges for possessing eagle feathers under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which generally prohibit such possession but grant permits only to enrolled members of federally recognized tribes. The court applied the Religious Freedom Restoration Act's strict scrutiny standard after the government conceded that the laws imposed a substantial burden on the defendants' religious exercise. Core reasoning examined whether the government's asserted compelling interests in eagle population protection and Native American cultural preservation could be advanced by less restrictive means than the current permitting scheme, including analysis of regulatory exceptions, the National Eagle Repository's operations, and evidence regarding demand and alternatives.

religious libertycriminal lawenvironmentcivil rights

The case United States v. Wilgus involved non-Native American practitioners of Native American religions who were charged with possessing eagle feathers in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The court considered the defendants' claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which requires the government to show that any substantial burden on religious exercise furthers a compelling interest through the least restrictive means. The government conceded a substantial burden but argued its interests in eagle conservation and Native American culture justified the restrictions, which permit possession only by enrolled members of federally recognized tribes via a permit system. The court analyzed whether exceptions in the regulatory scheme and alternative approaches demonstrated that the prohibitions were not the least restrictive means available.

religious libertycriminal lawenvironment

This case involves defendants Javier Bravo-Ortega and Michael Anthony Garcia, who filed motions to suppress evidence from traffic stops conducted by Utah Highway Patrol troopers on Interstate 70. The court denied both motions after an evidentiary hearing and oral arguments. Trooper Bowles stopped Bravo-Ortega's vehicle based on observed lane violations, including crossing the center line multiple times, which provided reasonable suspicion of a traffic offense under Utah law. Trooper Wright stopped Garcia's vehicle for a window tint violation, and the subsequent arrest was supported by probable cause from the search.

criminal lawprocedure

The National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation sued Utah officials, challenging the constitutionality of state election code provisions that define corporations, political issues committees, and political issues expenditures, which trigger disclosure and reporting requirements for organizations making campaign-related spending. The Foundation argued that the statutes were vague and overbroad under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, after it ran advertisements informing public school employees of their rights during a referendum campaign on school vouchers. The court granted the Foundation's motion for summary judgment. It held that disclosure obligations may constitutionally apply only to speech that is unambiguously campaign-related, consistent with Buckley v. Valeo and Wisconsin Right to Life, and that the statutes' broad, context-based definitions failed to provide clear boundaries and therefore violated the First Amendment.

electionsfree speech

This case involves a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act to the Secretary of the Interior's determination that certain tribal water rights of the Ute Indian Tribe were partitioned and distributed in 1961 between full-blood and mixed-blood members pursuant to the Ute Partition and Termination Act. The court reviewed the historical division process, including the 1956 Plan for Division of Assets approved by the parties and the Secretary, which stated that all water and water rights appurtenant to divided lands would run with the land and be valued accordingly. The court found substantial evidence that the parties intended and effectuated the distribution of these rights as part of the asset partition, with the mixed-blood group receiving its proportionate share. It therefore upheld the Secretary's decision that the water rights had been divided under the Act rather than remaining jointly managed.

federal powerpropertyprocedure

The case involves Seirus Innovative Accessories suing Do-Gree Fashions for patent infringement and trade dress misappropriation regarding ski masks and face protection products. The court construed the claims of the '804 and '690 patents, determining that the scarf member in the '804 patent is limited to the area below the temples and that the '690 patent requires the use of sport goggles over the eyes. The court denied the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the trade dress claim, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding functionality.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) alongside bank fraud charges, based on her alteration of the number on her own Utah identification card while passing a false check; the altered number happened to match another person's driver's license number. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the identity theft count. The core reasoning was that the statute's use of "knowingly" modifies the entire predicate phrase, requiring proof that the defendant knew she was using another person's means of identification, which the stipulated facts showed was not the case, as supported by the statute's plain language, legislative history, and the rule of lenity.

criminal law

This case was a patent infringement action brought by International Automated Systems, the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. 5,598,474, against Digital Persona and Microsoft over technology for a fingerprint identification system that reads, enhances, encodes, and verifies fingerprints on ID cards. The court conducted a Markman hearing to construe disputed claim terms in the patent and ruled on the defendants' motions for summary judgment of invalidity. It granted the motion for summary judgment finding the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 due to inadequate written description, lack of enablement, and failure to regard the claimed invention, while ruling the definiteness challenge moot and denying a motion to strike an expert declaration.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a constitutional challenge by various internet service providers, web hosts, and content providers to Utah's Harmful to Minors Act, which extends restrictions on distributing material harmful to minors to the internet and imposes obligations on ISPs and others regarding filtering, labeling, and inducing acceptance of certain content. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the First Amendment and Commerce Clause. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing, dismissing some plaintiffs entirely and dismissing all challenges to two provisions of the Act, while allowing the remaining plaintiffs to proceed on claims regarding two other provisions. The reasoning centered on whether each plaintiff demonstrated a credible fear of injury or enforcement under the specific statutory sections, finding insufficient risk of overblocking or prosecution for the dismissed claims and parties.

free speechcriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned C & M Properties' Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding and its subsequent lawsuit against its former law firm, Burbidge & Mitchell, alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty arising from representation in property disputes. The bankruptcy court dismissed the malpractice action with prejudice on judicial estoppel grounds due to C & M's failure to specifically disclose the potential claim in its bankruptcy schedules, though it had noted possible claims against professionals as contingent assets. On appeal, the district court reversed that dismissal, holding that judicial estoppel did not apply because the record did not show C & M gained an unfair advantage or caused detriment to others through the nondisclosure, and affirmed the bankruptcy court's earlier denial of dismissal on res judicata grounds.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves plaintiffs who lost money in fraudulent real estate and investment schemes carried out by agents of Attorneys’ Title Guarantee Fund (ATGF), a title insurance company in which the Florida Fund held a majority ownership stake; the plaintiffs sued the Florida Fund under theories including RICO violations, civil conspiracy, and alter-ego liability, in addition to other claims such as fraud and breach of contract. The court granted the Florida Fund’s motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the RICO, conspiracy, and alter-ego claims. The core reasoning was that the Florida Fund and ATGF operated as separate entities with independent offices, employees, and operations, the Florida Fund did not participate in or control the fraudulent activities, and the alleged predicate acts did not form a pattern of racketeering activity or establish an ongoing criminal enterprise under RICO standards.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Claudia Sanborn sued mortgage broker American Lending Network, loan officer Stephanie Bevard, and title company D Land Title under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Truth in Lending Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and various state-law claims including fraud and emotional distress, alleging improper handling of a 2001 refinance of her rental property and related mortgage documents such as an altered HUD-1 settlement statement. American Lending counterclaimed for breach of contract. The court denied the plaintiff's motions for partial summary judgment and sanctions, granted the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment on all of the plaintiff's claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff admitted she suffered no financial, emotional, or other harm from any discrepancies in the loan documents or communications, there was no credible evidence of violations causing injury, and the defendants' attorneys' actions regarding a payoff letter did not warrant sanctions.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability