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

The case involved a licensed owner of a sexually oriented business who sought to relocate her operation without obtaining a new license and challenged the city's enforcement of a 600-foot distance requirement from other such businesses. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city, finding the license transferable but upholding the city's measurement of the distance from property line to property line, which barred the new location. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the ordinance permitted transfer of the license and required the distance to be measured building to building, as the regulation governed activities within the business premises rather than the broader property.

business & regulatoryproperty

In State v. Ortiz, consolidated with a related case, defendants charged with capital murder challenged a post-crime amendment to Utah Code section 76-3-207(4) that allowed a jury to impose life without parole by a 10-2, 11-1, or 12-0 vote rather than requiring unanimity, claiming violations of federal and state ex post facto clauses as well as the state constitutional requirement of unanimous verdicts. The Utah Supreme Court dismissed the interlocutory appeals and remanded for trial. The court reasoned that the issues were not ripe because neither defendant had been convicted or sentenced, multiple possible trial outcomes could avoid the constitutional questions entirely, and deciding them now would amount to an advisory opinion.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Chapoose, the defendant, convicted of sodomy on a child, appealed the trial court's denial of probation under Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-406.5 after it terminated proceedings based on an incomplete psychological evaluation and imposed a prison sentence. The evaluation was prepared by a licensed psychologist using test results from a certified social worker who had interviewed the defendant, but the psychologist had no personal contact with him and the report failed to address key statutory factors such as whether the defendant was an exclusive pedophile or posed an immediate danger. The Utah Supreme Court reversed the termination of probation proceedings and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, holding that the statute requires a complete psychological evaluation performed according to professional standards of reliability and competency, though it does not explicitly address whether a personal interview by the psychologist is necessary, and the licensing statutes do not resolve the issue.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Layman, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of driving under the influence, possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, and possession of paraphernalia, based on a traffic stop where a passenger carried a pouch containing methamphetamine and related items. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the DUI conviction but reversed the two possession convictions, and the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to review that decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the reversals, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish constructive possession because there was no adequate showing of a nexus between the defendant and the items in the passenger's physical possession that would allow an inference of dominion, control, and intent. The court explained that factors from prior cases like Fox and Salas are illustrative rather than exhaustive, and the general test requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the power and intent to exercise control over the drugs or paraphernalia. The passenger's glance at the defendant and his head shake when asked about the pouch did not meet this standard, nor did other surrounding circumstances such as the defendant's behavior or prior drug use.

criminal law

This case is a divorce action filed by Janna Griffith against David Griffith in Utah, involving disputes over alimony, child support, property division, and attorney fees. The Utah Supreme Court reviewed challenges to trial court orders that imposed attorney fees on Janna and her counsel for questioning a judge's impartiality after the first day of trial, filing a meritless motion to disqualify David's attorney, and related sanctions. The court affirmed these fee awards, finding they were supported by evidence of bad faith and lack of merit without an abuse of discretion. It also upheld the trial court's refusal to impute additional income to David beyond his salary and averaged bonuses, based on factual findings that he was not voluntarily underemployed and that bonus amounts varied over time. The court declined to address other issues as meritless.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a medical malpractice claim brought by R. Lane Boice against Dr. Stephen P. Marble, a physiatrist, alleging that Marble's removal of a hard cervical collar, failure to order x-rays after a wheelchair incident, and other actions during rehabilitation caused or contributed to permanent loss of function in Boice's left wrist, hand, and fingers following spinal surgery. The trial court granted summary judgment to Marble after striking expert affidavits and denying substitution of a new physiatrist expert, on the ground that Boice lacked testimony from a same-specialty physician to establish the standard of care. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that testimony from the neurosurgeon who performed Boice's surgery created a genuine issue of material fact on the malpractice elements and that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the substitute expert and related evidence.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case involved a dispute between the Salt Lake County Commission and the County Attorney over their respective roles in county government, including whether the County Attorney serves as counsel to the Commission and individual commissioners in an attorney-client relationship, the Commission's authority to retain independent counsel at county expense when facing conflicts or unwillingness by the County Attorney, and the validity of using county funds for certain charitable contributions. The Utah Supreme Court reversed the trial court's determination that an attorney-client relationship exists between the County Attorney and the Commission or its members, reversed the ruling upholding the charitable contributions, and affirmed with modifications the Commission's authority to hire independent counsel in specified situations. The core reasoning was that the County Attorney's professional duty runs to the county as an entity rather than to particular officials, that statutory restrictions limit charitable spending, and that the Commission requires access to legal representation to perform its governmental functions when the County Attorney cannot provide it.

procedure

The case involved Jeff Martin's convictions for aggravated kidnapping, rape, and forcible sodomy arising from an incident with Lorraine Egan, where Martin claimed the contact was consensual. Martin appealed the trial court's denial of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence about a prosecutor's statement to Egan, denial of his motion to discover the identity of a prior alleged rapist, and the sealing of Egan's mental health records after in camera review. The court affirmed the denial of the new trial motion, finding that the evidence about the alleged threat would not have changed the trial outcome because Egan's testimony remained consistent. It held that the trial court erred in denying discovery of the prior rapist's identity under Rule 16 and in failing to conduct ongoing review of the sealed records for materiality under due process principles, and remanded for further proceedings on those issues.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Nova Casualty Company seeking a declaratory judgment that its commercial general liability insurance policy with Able Construction did not obligate it to defend Able against claims by home purchasers alleging misrepresentations about the permissibility of operating a business from their home under subdivision covenants. The trial court granted summary judgment to Nova, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the claims did not fall under the policy's coverage for bodily injury and property damage caused by an occurrence, personal or advertising injury, or medical expenses, as the alleged misrepresentations did not constitute an occurrence or invasion of privacy.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In Semenov v. Hill, a Russian immigrant plaintiff sought to rescind a real estate purchase contract for a restaurant, alleging that the seller misrepresented the business's profitability and that he lacked sufficient English proficiency to understand the lengthy closing documents he signed. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding no genuine dispute that the plaintiff had adequate language skills and sophistication. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaintiff's English proficiency presented a disputed material fact relevant to his fraud claim, while rejecting any fiduciary duty between buyer and seller. The court reasoned that language barriers can bear on whether reliance on representations was reasonable or whether fraud occurred in procuring the signature, distinguishing precedents involving English-proficient parties, and remanded for further proceedings.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over the tax assessment value of residential property in Sandy, Utah, that was contaminated with lead and arsenic from an old smelter site. The property owners argued the value should be zero due to contamination costs, while the county board sought a higher valuation than the one set by the Utah State Tax Commission, which valued the land at zero and the home at $398,166. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's valuation, holding that neither party demonstrated the decision lacked substantial evidence under the applicable standard of review for factual findings on valuation methodology.

taxesproperty

This case concerns a long-running dispute in a general water rights adjudication over claims to specific water from Spring Creek in Utah, pitting several landowners (the Cherrington successors) against Springville city; the landowners assert diligence rights to the original source rather than substitute water from other sources delivered via the Highline Canal since the early 20th century. The Supreme Court of Utah reviewed appeals from partial summary judgment granted to Springville in the general adjudication and from dismissal of a separate statutory proceeding under Utah Code Ann. § 73-4-24. It affirmed the trial court's rulings in most respects, including dismissal of the separate petition on grounds that the general adjudication could resolve the objections with reasonable promptness, but reversed the partial summary judgment as to all landowners except Captola Murdock and remanded those claims for trial on the merits. The core reasoning centered on res judicata effects from a prior Harding decree, the sufficiency of evidence regarding water rights transfers, and the trial court's discretion to manage the ongoing adjudication efficiently.

propertyprocedureenvironment

This case arose after plaintiff De Ette Gerbich fell from the steps of a leased trailer housing a CT scanner and sued Numed, Inc. and General Electric on theories of negligence, products liability, and breach of warranty. The trial court dismissed the claims against G.E. on summary judgment, ruling that they were time-barred under Utah’s products-liability statute of limitations and that G.E. owed no duty because it had not built or attached the steps; it also excluded Gerbich’s proposed safety expert at trial for late and improper disclosure. A jury returned a verdict for Numed. On appeal the Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the complaints sounded in products liability, that no admissible evidence linked G.E. to the trailer’s construction, and that the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding the undisclosed expert to avoid unfair surprise.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Workman v. Brighton Properties, Inc., a lot owner in Silver Lake Estates Subdivision No. 2 sued the homeowners' corporation to block a $300 assessment for an engineering study of the water system, claiming the project would not benefit his property. The district court denied the owner's summary judgment motion and granted judgment to the corporation, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the articles of incorporation, bylaws, and restrictive covenants authorized the corporation to levy assessments for water development serving both subdivisions. It reasoned that the governing documents permitted such assessments without requiring a direct benefit to each lot and that prior precedent supported enforcing the plain terms of the documents even absent individualized benefit.

property