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

In State v. Hansen, the defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and rape after dragging the victim back to his bedroom and assaulting her when she tried to leave his home. He appealed on due process grounds, claiming the trial court should have conducted an in camera review of the victim's mental health counseling records instead of directing the prosecutor to review them for materiality. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appeal. The court reasoned that after the trial court ordered the prosecutor to examine the records and invited further argument if needed, the defendant acknowledged the ruling but did not request in camera review or raise any disagreement before or during trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an eminent domain action in which the Utah Department of Transportation sought to condemn about 1.36 acres of vacant land owned by Harvey Real Estate to construct a frontage road along Highway 89. The trial court ruled that Harvey could not introduce expert evidence of damages from the closure of a nearby intersection, as those harms were not caused by the taking itself, and that UDOT had abandoned a 1936 right-of-way over a strip of the property by fencing it off decades earlier. On interlocutory appeal, the Utah Supreme Court held that severance damages under Utah Code Ann. § 78-34-10 are limited to injuries resulting from the severance and construction of the improvement, so evidence of the intersection closure was properly excluded. The court further held that the right-of-way had not been abandoned, because state statutes require formal action by highway authorities to vacate a public highway and no such order occurred. The court therefore affirmed the evidentiary ruling but reversed the abandonment determination.

propertyprocedure

In Toone v. Weber County, former users of public land sued after Weber County sold 160 acres known as Wolf Creek Park to a private buyer for $200 per acre without prior public notice, hearing, or submission to the county planning commission. The plaintiffs argued the sale violated the County Land Use Development and Management Act (CLUDMA) and was made for inadequate consideration. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the challenge time-barred. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the thirty-day limitation period for land use decisions did not apply to the conveyance and that CLUDMA required the county to refer the proposed sale of public property to the planning commission for review and recommendation before completing the transaction. Because that procedural step was omitted, the court voided the sale without reaching the adequacy of consideration issue.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a real estate brokerage firm, Wardley, that sued Tracy Cannon and her firm for unlawful interference with contract and related claims after the Mascaros sold property to Cannon, despite Wardley's prior listing agreements that its agent had fraudulently altered to extend their duration. After losing at trial, Cannon sought attorney fees under Utah Code section 78-27-56 on the ground that the action lacked merit and was brought in bad faith, but the trial court denied the motion and the court of appeals affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the agent's knowledge of the fraud must be imputed to Wardley, rendering the claims meritless and pursued in bad faith, and remanded the case for the trial court to award reasonable fees to Cannon unless it provides a sufficient reason under subsection (2) to decline or limit the award.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Gottling v. P.R. Inc., an at-will employee sued her small employer and its owner for wrongful termination after she was allegedly fired for refusing a sexual relationship with the owner, claiming the termination violated a public policy against sex discrimination. Because the employer had fewer than fifteen employees, the plaintiff could not pursue relief under the Utah Anti-Discrimination Act (UADA), which provides an administrative remedy only for larger employers. The Utah Supreme Court held that the UADA preempts common-law tort claims for employment discrimination, including those based on an alleged public policy against sex discrimination, even for employees of small employers not covered by the statute. The court reasoned that the legislature's comprehensive statutory scheme for addressing discrimination claims was intended to be exclusive, and allowing parallel common-law actions would conflict with the Act's structure and purpose. The decision reversed the trial court's ruling and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned whether Utah sales tax applied to lease payments in a series of sale-leaseback transactions between Matrix Funding Corp. and ZCMI, structured so that ZCMI sold business equipment to Matrix and leased it back while attempting to treat the deals as operating leases for accounting purposes. After prior rulings upheld the tax and the legislature amended the statutes, Matrix sought refunds for taxes paid from 1991 to 1994 and later periods. The court examined whether Matrix's refund claims satisfied statutory and regulatory requirements, including providing adequate detail to apprise the Tax Commission of the grounds for relief. It reasoned that claims must set forth the exact basis with sufficient facts under standards similar to federal Treasury regulations, and that informal or ambiguous submissions generally do not preserve issues for judicial review.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved petitioner Patrick Hegarty's challenge to an order by the Utah Board of Oil, Gas, and Mining that imposed a 225% nonconsent penalty on his leased mineral interests and denied retroactive pooling for two wells drilled by River Gas Corporation that drained lands within the Drunkards Wash Federal Exploratory Unit. The court held that the landowners were not statutory nonconsenting owners under the Utah Oil and Gas Conservation Act because they had opportunities since 1995 to seek state spacing and pooling orders but chose not to act, allowing their property to be drained. It affirmed the Board's denial of retroactive pooling on that basis. However, the court reversed the imposition of the nonconsent penalty, concluding that the landowners did not qualify for such penalties, and remanded with instructions to deduct only Hegarty's fair share of costs from his post-pooling production share.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Christopher Wickham's post-conviction petition seeking a new trial after his conviction on two counts of aggravated sexual assault; the petition was based on newly obtained records from agencies like Artec and DFS that the trial court deemed material after an in camera review. The Utah Supreme Court reversed the grant of post-conviction relief, holding that the State had the right to appeal the final order under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act and Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65C. The court reasoned that the records constituted only impeachment evidence regarding the victim's credibility and did not establish that no reasonable trier of fact could have found Wickham guilty, nor did they support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, as trial counsel's decisions were tactical or based on unavailable information.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved three applicants who failed the July 2000 Utah Bar Examination and petitioned the Utah State Bar's Executive Committee for admission, alleging irregularities in the exam's construction, administration, and grading that violated their due process and equal protection rights. The court affirmed the Bar's denial of admission, finding that the petitioners were not treated unfairly or arbitrarily, as the same processes applied to all examinees and they had the opportunity to retake the exam. The court reasoned that any minor irregularities did not demonstrate unfair treatment, and the extensive review process provided adequate due process under the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, considering the ability to retake, low risk of error, and administrative burdens.

procedurecivil rights

The case involved Larry Julian's petition for post-conviction relief from his 1987 convictions for aggravated sexual abuse of his two young daughters, based on newly discovered evidence that one daughter had recanted her trial testimony claiming her mother had pressured her to lie. The habeas court granted relief after finding the recantation credible and likely to produce a different result on retrial under standards from State v. James. On the State's appeal, the Utah Supreme Court held that the Post-Conviction Remedies Act did not apply because the original petition was filed before its effective date, and it remanded for further findings on whether the recantation could serve a non-impeachment purpose and whether it rendered a different trial outcome substantially likely.

criminal lawprocedure

In this wrongful death case, the parents of Dustin Parks sued the Utah Transit Authority after he was killed when his car collided with a UTA bus that turned left in front of him. A jury awarded the parents over $1.7 million in damages, but the trial court reduced the judgment to $250,000 under the damage cap in the Utah Governmental Immunity Act. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the cap either did not apply or should allow $250,000 per parent. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the reduced judgment, holding that the Act's $250,000 limit applies to damages arising from injury or death to one person regardless of the number of plaintiffs, based on the plain language of section 63-30-34(1)(b).

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved homeowners who purchased a newly constructed home and later discovered significant structural damage due to unstable soil conditions at the subdivision site. The plaintiffs sued the listing real estate broker and his agent (the contractor's wife), alleging negligence and fraud for failing to disclose known or knowable defects like poor drainage and a stuck backhoe, despite the broker's alleged representations of acting in the buyers' interest. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the claims based on the economic loss rule from American Towers and insufficient evidence of fraud. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that real estate professionals owe a duty of honesty and disclosure to buyers under Utah law, that the economic loss rule does not bar such tort claims here, and that sufficient independent evidence existed to invoke an exception to the spousal communication privilege for communications aiding tortious conduct, warranting remand for trial.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved defendant Val-den Cram, who faced charges of tax evasion and whose first trial ended when the jury indicated it could not reach a unanimous verdict, prompting the court to declare a mistrial after giving an Allen instruction. Cram later moved to dismiss the retrial on double jeopardy grounds, arguing the mistrial lacked his consent or legal necessity, but the trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Utah Supreme Court likewise affirmed, holding that Cram failed to preserve the issue because his counsel did not object at the time of the mistrial declaration despite two opportunities to do so on the record. The court distinguished prior precedent where a mistrial was declared so abruptly that counsel had no chance to object, and it concluded that the delayed objection violated preservation rules. Double jeopardy therefore did not bar retrial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute between sisters Betty Goodnow and Marie Sullivan over whether their late mother, Fern Morrison, had validly amended her inter vivos trust to remove Sullivan as a successor trustee before her death. Goodnow sued to declare Sullivan removed based on several letters Morrison signed and delivered in 1998 expressing her desire to exclude Sullivan from control of the trust assets. The trial court granted summary judgment to Goodnow, ruling that the letters constituted a valid amendment as a matter of law. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the documents and surrounding facts created genuine issues of material fact regarding Morrison's intent that could only be resolved at trial, making summary judgment improper.

propertyprocedurefamily law