Gordon R. Hall

This case is a medical malpractice suit brought by the Bensons against LDS Hospital and several physicians, alleging negligent care during the 1990 delivery of Jesse Benson that caused severe birth injuries. During discovery, the hospital withheld certain documents under asserted care review and peer review privileges; the trial court ordered their production after finding the hospital had improperly commingled privileged and nonprivileged materials, thereby waiving protection. On interlocutory appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statutes creating the privileges contain no commingling-waiver rule and that the trial court lacked authority to compel disclosure on that basis. The court remanded for a proper determination, after evidentiary showings, of which specific documents qualify for privilege and whether any medical-record documents were improperly withheld.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved whether a restitution order for unpaid state income taxes survived the death of defendant Edward Christensen during his appeal of convictions for tax-related misdemeanors and felonies. The Utah Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, ruling that the restitution order did not abate upon the defendant's death. The court held that while purely punitive criminal penalties like prison terms and fines abate under precedent, the restitution order—limited to the exact taxes owed plus penalties and interest—has the same effect as a civil judgment under Utah statutes and thus survives. The appeal on the restitution order is to continue after substitution of parties, with the order remaining valid if affirmed or abating if reversed.

criminal lawtaxes

In State v. Blair, defendant James Earl Blair appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to first-degree murder, which he had entered in exchange for the prosecution not seeking the death penalty after he was charged in the 1978 shooting death of Robyn LeRoy Halsey during a robbery. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Blair's plea was knowing and voluntary because he understood the elements of the offense and the risks of trial, including the possibility of accomplice liability even if he did not fire the fatal shot. The court also rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding that Blair's attorney provided competent advice about the strength of the evidence and the plea bargain, and that Blair had multiple opportunities to raise inconsistencies in his statements before and after the plea. Finally, the court declined to apply the doctrine of laches as an alternative ground for affirmance.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Gardner, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder and aggravated burglary after allegedly shooting someone while under the influence of the prescription drug Prozac, which he claimed caused temporary insanity. He sought to raise a defense of involuntary intoxication under a standard similar to Colorado's or Utah's pre-1983 law, arguing it was not covered by the mental illness defense statute. The trial court ruled that involuntary intoxication falls under Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-305, which addresses defenses based on mental illness or diminished capacity, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed this on appeal. The court reasoned that Utah lacks a separate statute for involuntary intoxication, so such claims must meet the criteria of the existing mental illness provision to negate the required mens rea, consistent with approaches in other jurisdictions.

criminal law

The case involved attorney A. Paul Schwenke's appeal of a Board of Bar Commissioners order affirming his disbarment and a restitution obligation of $97,250 for misappropriating funds from a client in a 1985 personal injury matter. The court affirmed the discipline after reviewing claims that Schwenke had not been properly served with the formal complaint and related notices. The core reasoning was that service by certified mail to his known practice address and roster address was valid under the circumstances, he received actual notice of the sanctions hearing, and he was given a full opportunity to contest the allegations on the merits despite the entry of default. The court rejected his other arguments as meritless.

procedurecriminal law

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of Maurine Hunsaker, a Gas-A-Mat cashier abducted and murdered in 1986 by Ralph Leroy Menzies, a parolee from the Utah State Prison. Plaintiffs alleged that the State of Utah was negligent in its parole supervision of Menzies and that Gas-A-Mat failed in its duty to provide adequate security at the workplace. The district court granted summary judgment to the State and dismissed claims against Gas-A-Mat. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed both rulings, holding that undisputed facts entitled the State to judgment as a matter of law on the negligence claims and that Gas-A-Mat was protected by the exclusive-remedy provisions of the Utah Workers' Compensation Act.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a personal injury lawsuit brought by Daniel McCorvey against the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and LeGrand Johnson Construction Company after McCorvey was paralyzed in a rollover accident on Interstate 15 during a chip-sealing road resurfacing project. McCorvey alleged negligence in failing to properly control traffic, close lanes, and remove excess gravel, which contributed to his loss of control. A jury found in his favor and awarded damages, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the verdict on appeal. The court held that the evidence supported the jury's findings of liability, that UDOT retained responsibility for motorist safety despite using contractors, and that the damage cap under state law applied without constitutional violation in this context.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned Kennecott Corporation's challenge to its 1983 property tax assessment by the Utah State Tax Commission and Salt Lake County, which was based on a statute allowing different tax rates for locally and state-assessed property. Kennecott paid under protest and sought a refund, arguing the assessment was unconstitutional under the Utah Constitution's equal taxation provisions, and that it should benefit from the retroactive relief granted in the prior Rio Algom decision that invalidated the statute. The trial court granted summary judgment for Kennecott, but the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that Rio Algom's plain language limited retroactive application solely to the six plaintiffs in that case for their 1981 taxes and was otherwise prospective from 1984. The court reasoned that it had explicitly considered and rejected broader retroactivity to pending claims by others when deciding Rio Algom, so Kennecott's 1983 claim remained barred.

taxespropertyprocedure

In State v. Deli, the defendant was convicted by a jury of multiple felonies arising from a 1990 armed home invasion in Utah that included two second-degree murders, attempted murder, aggravated arson, two aggravated kidnappings, aggravated robbery, theft, and aggravated assault, after which he received consecutive prison sentences including terms of five years to life plus firearm enhancements. On appeal, Deli challenged the sentences as violating Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401(4) by exceeding an aggregate maximum of thirty years and as imposing unnecessary rigor under article I, section 9 of the Utah Constitution. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the thirty-year limit on consecutive sentences does not apply when any offense in the chain authorizes life imprisonment, that firearm enhancements are not separate sentences for aggregation purposes, and that adherence to statutory guidelines precluded a constitutional violation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved AOK Lands seeking payment from an errors and omissions insurance policy issued to Utah Title and Abstract Company after AOK obtained a $400,000 negligence judgment against Utah Title for an employee's alteration of property conveyance documents that caused AOK to lose valuable real property. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurers, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the policy's claims-made provision barred coverage because the claim against Utah Title was first made in 1979, well after the final policy period ended in February 1978. The court held that the unambiguous policy language required claims to be asserted during the policy term, that Utah Title never had a valid claim under the policy, and that the claims-made requirement did not violate statutes of limitations or public policy.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case concerned Terry L. Hay's conviction for second-degree murder in the death of Lony Crosby. Hay and Crosby went camping in Utah in August 1989; Crosby disappeared after two gunshots were heard, Hay gave multiple inconsistent accounts of Crosby's whereabouts, and Crosby's body was later found shot twice in the head. Hay was charged and convicted after confessing responsibility but offering varying explanations including accident or self-defense. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence supported the verdict and that claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel did not warrant reversal.

criminal law

Kennecott Corporation challenged the Utah State Tax Commission's assessment of its centrally assessed mining property at 100% of fair market value for 1988, seeking a 20% reduction under a statute for county-assessed real property or alternatively a 14% reduction to match railroad assessments. The court affirmed the Commission's denial of any reduction. The core reasoning was that Kennecott's property used different valuation methods than county-assessed properties, distinguishing the case from precedent requiring equal treatment, and that the statutory classifications did not violate uniformity or equal protection requirements under the Utah Constitution or U.S. Constitution.

taxesproperty

This case is a legal malpractice action brought by the guardians of Shelly Hipwell against her former attorneys, Roger Sharp and Tim Healy, for allegedly failing to adequately research and investigate before settling her medical malpractice claim against the University of Utah Medical Center for $250,000. The trial court denied the attorneys' motions for summary judgment, and on interlocutory appeal the Utah Supreme Court affirmed that denial and remanded for further proceedings. The court reasoned that the reasonableness of the attorneys' advice must be evaluated based on the law as it existed when the advice was given in 1989—specifically, six days after the decision in Condemarin v. University Hospital, which held that the $250,000 damages cap in the Utah Governmental Immunity Act was unconstitutional as applied to the Hospital—rather than on any later developments or arguments about the cap's validity.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether a shareholder in a mutual water corporation could file an application with the state engineer to change the point of diversion of water associated with its shares without the corporation's consent. Payson City Corporation, a shareholder in East Jordan Irrigation Company, sought to divert water from a well for municipal use instead of irrigation, and the state engineer approved the change after hearings. The trial court granted summary judgment upholding the engineer's decision. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the corporation holds legal title to the water rights, only the corporation may file a change application, and shareholders lack the authority to do so independently even absent specific restrictions in the articles or bylaws.

propertybusiness & regulatoryenvironment

In State v. Archuleta, the Society of Professional Journalists and Deseret News sought access to sealed pretrial documents and exhibits from the preliminary hearing in a high-profile murder case involving defendants Archuleta and Wood, after the magistrate closed the hearing and sealed the record to protect the ongoing investigation and the defendants' fair trial rights. The district court lifted the seal on the hearing transcript but upheld sealing of the pretrial documents and all exhibits admitted at the hearing. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while a qualified First Amendment right of access may apply to preliminary hearings, it does not extend to the associated documents and exhibits here because there was no historical tradition of access, public access would not significantly aid the process, and specific findings showed a substantial probability that publicity would prejudice the defendants' right to an impartial jury, with no adequate alternatives to closure. The court reached similar conclusions under the Utah Constitution and common law, weighing the press's access claims against the defendants' Sixth Amendment protections.

criminal lawfree speech

The case concerned Anastacio Fernandez's habeas corpus petition seeking a new trial after his 1986 conviction on two counts of rape of a child, based on claims that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately prepare, investigate, or cross-examine witnesses such as the examining physician. The district court granted the petition, but the Utah Supreme Court reversed that grant and the denial of the State's motion for a new trial. The court held that Fernandez had not satisfied the prejudice prong of the Strickland v. Washington test by affirmatively showing a reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed absent counsel's alleged deficiencies, rendering the claims speculative, and that courts would not second-guess legitimate strategic decisions. The opinion emphasized that the failure to address prejudice on most claims and the inadequate showing on the remaining claim precluded relief.

criminal law

In Walker v. Brigham City, a resident sued the city over its operation of the municipal electric utility, alleging that rates set above the cost of service produced surpluses transferred to the general fund, violating Utah Code Ann. § 55-3-10's reasonableness requirement and amounting to an unconstitutional taking. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that municipal utility rate-setting is a legislative function entitled to deference unless arbitrary or capricious, that rates are presumed reasonable, and that the plaintiff failed to overcome that presumption or establish a protected property interest in particular rate levels. It further rejected the claim that surpluses converted the fees into an illegal tax.

business & regulatorytaxesproperty

Sandra Beynon sued the St. George-Dixie Elks Lodge after it denied her membership application solely because she is female, alleging a violation of the Utah Civil Rights Act's prohibition on sex discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Elks, finding it was not an enterprise regulated by the state. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Elks qualifies as an enterprise regulated by the state under the Act because it holds a private club liquor license and sells over $250,000 in alcoholic beverages annually. The court reasoned that the statutory definition covers any place of business selling beer to consumers under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, without requiring a profit motive or openness to the general public. Because the Act therefore applied, the Elks could not discriminate on the basis of sex in membership decisions.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

In Hansen v. Heath, plaintiff Gail Hansen sued to recover for injuries from a 1988 rear-end collision caused by defendant James Woo, who raised the affirmative defense that he had suddenly lost consciousness due to a medical condition and therefore was not negligent. The trial court admitted Woo's post-accident statements to his physician, along with related medical records diagnosing syncope, under the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis and treatment. A jury returned a verdict of no cause for the plaintiff, finding that Woo had suffered an unforeseeable blackout. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statements were properly admitted because they were made for purposes of medical treatment and were reliable despite being exculpatory, and that the trial court's factual and legal determinations on admissibility were not erroneous.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves homeowners Phillip and Katherine Alf suing State Farm for breach of an all-risk homeowners insurance policy after the insurer denied coverage for extensive property damage from soil erosion and flooding caused by a burst water pipe during freezing temperatures. Although the policy covered the pipe itself, State Farm invoked an exclusion for losses due to earth movement. The trial court granted summary judgment to State Farm, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the exclusion was clear and unambiguous on its face, applied even when triggered by a covered peril, and did not create ambiguity or violate reasonable expectations merely by conflicting with the general coverage grant.

propertybusiness & regulatory