Richard C. Howe

The case concerned a dispute between neighboring property owners Arnold Industries and the Loves over the existence of an access easement across Arnold's land to reach a loading dock on Love's property. After cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court ruled that the easement was validly created by recorded deeds from 1982 onward and granted judgment to Love; it also dismissed Arnold's separate claims against Salt Lake County and its recorder for failing to properly index a 1991 corrective deed. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that prior warranty deeds and a quiet-title decree in the chain of title provided constructive notice of the easement to Arnold at the time of purchase, rendering any indexing omission immaterial to Arnold's knowledge.

propertyprocedure

Richard Dee Thomas appealed the district court's dismissal of his petition for extraordinary relief, which challenged his 1995 conviction for aggravated robbery on multiple grounds including the validity of arrest and search warrants, the bindover, his confession, preliminary and parole hearings, trial timing, and the denial of credit for time served. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that most issues had been or could have been raised on direct appeal and were thus barred under rules governing extraordinary relief, while others lacked merit or involved unreviewable decisions by the Board of Pardons. The court noted that Thomas had already exercised his right to appeal his conviction, and an illegal arrest does not void a subsequent conviction. It also found no factual disputes requiring a hearing on the petition.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Brookes Colby Shumway, who was convicted as an adult of first-degree murder and second-degree tampering with evidence after stabbing his friend Christopher Ray to death in 2000. The Utah Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction, holding that jury instruction 26 was erroneous because it mandated a specific order of deliberation on lesser included offenses such as manslaughter and could be read to require unanimous acquittal on the greater charge before considering lesser ones, contrary to State v. Gardner and related precedent; this error was plain and prejudicial. The court also reversed the tampering conviction for insufficiency of the evidence, finding only speculative support for the claim that Shumway concealed or disposed of a second implement used in the stabbing. The murder charge was remanded for retrial and the tampering charge was dismissed.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hogle v. Zinetics Medical, Inc., minority shareholders of Zinetics appealed the district court's valuation of their shares at less than 4.528 cents per share following a forced merger by parent company Medtronic, exercising their dissenters' rights under Utah Code Ann. section 16-10a-1302. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court's use of the income valuation method and rejection of asset value and market value approaches, as well as its decision not to apply discounts for minority status. However, the court reversed in part because the district court failed to make explicit findings on which projections to use and its calculations were not verifiable, leading to a remand for recalculation of fair value without discounts.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns whether a Utah district court has jurisdiction to prosecute an adult defendant for crimes allegedly committed as a juvenile. The defendant, charged with six first-degree felonies involving sexual abuse of a child after turning twenty-one, moved to dismiss on grounds that only the juvenile court could hear the case. The district court denied the motion, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed on interlocutory appeal. The court held that Utah Code section 78-3-4 grants district courts original jurisdiction over all criminal matters unless another statute prohibits it, while section 78-3a-104(1)(a) limits juvenile court jurisdiction to minors and persons under twenty-one at the time proceedings begin. Because the plain statutory language did not divest the district court of authority once the defendant reached twenty-one, jurisdiction properly lay in district court.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved two former radiography technicians who sued Bayer Corporation's AGFA division, alleging that negligent installation and servicing of an x-ray processing machine caused their illnesses from chemical fumes due to inadequate ventilation in a hospital room. The trial court excluded the plaintiffs' expert testimony on medical causation and granted summary judgment to the defendant. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the experts' opinions satisfied admissibility standards for scientific evidence and that disputed facts existed on AGFA's knowledge of risks, duty to warn or ensure proper ventilation under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 388, and breach, precluding summary judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure