Michael D. Zimmerman

In Gilger v. Hernandez, plaintiffs sued a social host for negligence after a minor guest became intoxicated at her party, threatened others, and then stabbed them outside; the claims included negligence per se for violating the statute against serving alcohol to minors and breach of an alleged special-relationship duty to supervise, call police, or summon aid. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the alcohol-service and most special-relationship claims, holding that the Dramshop Act preempted common-law negligence actions against social hosts who serve only beer and that no general tort duty arose from hosting the event. It reversed and remanded, however, on the narrow claims arising from the host's alleged refusal to call for emergency help or interference with others attempting to do so after the stabbings occurred, finding those facts could support a duty to render aid.

torts & liabilitycriminal law

The case concerns agreements between Orem City, Woodbury Corporation, and Z.C.M.I. under which the City provided financial incentives funded by sales tax revenue to retain and renovate stores at the University Mall and attract new tenants after J.C. Penney announced its departure. Price Development, developer of a competing mall in Provo, sued to invalidate the agreements, arguing that the Utah Neighborhood Development Act preempted local ordinances, that the deals violated constitutional and statutory rules on tax collection and expenditure of public funds without adequate consideration, and that the trial court improperly denied additional discovery time. The trial court granted the defendants partial summary judgment and dismissed the claims. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed in part, holding that the Development Act did not preempt the ordinances and that the agreements were not facially invalid on tax grounds, but reversed and remanded for further proceedings on whether the City received adequate consideration given annual appropriation requirements and potential shifts in tax revenue sources within the city.

business & regulatorytaxes

This case involved a dispute between sisters Lynda Snow and Gloria Rudd over real property that their father sold to Gloria while acting as trustee of a family trust created by their mother. Lynda sued to impose a constructive trust, claiming the sale breached the trust terms, and the trial court granted her partial summary judgment while rejecting Gloria's statute of limitations defense. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the four-year statute of limitations barred the claim. The court explained that Lynda received documents in March 1985 that referenced the trust and the sale to Gloria, providing adequate notice to trigger the limitations period through reasonable inquiry, so the claim filed in 1994 was untimely and the discovery rule did not apply.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved William Jesse Loose's conviction on two counts of sodomy on a child and two counts of sexual abuse of a child against his stepdaughter J.J. Loose appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing errors in admitting hearsay and profile evidence from a therapist, hearsay from the victim, exclusion of defense evidence about his marriage, newly discovered evidence suggesting the victim recanted, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, reviewing for abuse of discretion and finding that any evidentiary errors were harmless because other evidence, including the victim's detailed testimony and a therapy letter, was sufficient to support the verdict. The court also upheld the trial court's rulings on the remaining issues without finding prejudice or grounds for retrial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved charges against James and Jeanne Redd for violating Utah Code section 76-9-704 by digging at an Anasazi archaeological site on state land, where they allegedly removed, disturbed, and discarded ancient human remains from a midden area. A magistrate dismissed the initial charges under subsection (1)(b), finding uncertainty about whether the statute applied to remains presumed to be a thousand years old, and the court of appeals upheld the dismissal on the ground that the statute required proof the body had been intentionally interred in a designated place of repose. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute applies to any dead human body without regard to age or burial practices, that midden areas qualified as places of repose under the evidence presented, and that the state could refile under subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) with additional archaeological testimony. The court rejected the defendants' due process challenge to refiling, concluding that the court of appeals' sua sponte addition of an element constituted good cause.

criminal law

In Sperry v. Sperry, Annette Sperry sued her automobile insurer AMCO for bad faith and misrepresentation after it initially offered only $25,000 to settle her wrongful death claim against her husband, a co-insured, for the death of their son in a car accident; the policy had a household exclusion limiting coverage to that amount for family members, though the parties later settled for the full $100,000 limit. The district court dismissed the bad faith and misrepresentation claims, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that Annette was a third party, not a first party, when pursuing a liability claim against her co-insured husband, so AMCO owed her no duty of good faith or fair dealing in the settlement negotiations. The reasoning emphasized that Utah law limits the duty of good faith to first-party insureds and that treating Annette as a first party here would create conflicting duties for the insurer and an inherent conflict of interest.

torts & liabilityfamily law