The case involved a former Murray City police officer who was terminated from his position after it was discovered he was practicing plural marriage, which he claimed was protected as a genuine religious belief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff sought damages against the city and officials, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate Utah's anti-polygamy laws and the federal Enabling Act requirements. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. It concluded that the termination did not violate the plaintiff's rights and that the state laws prohibiting plural marriage were constitutional, relying on longstanding precedent that religious beliefs do not exempt individuals from generally applicable criminal laws against polygamy.
religious libertycivil rightscriminal lawlabor & employment
This case involved a federal condemnation action in which the United States took 160 acres of land in Utah for a dam and reservoir project and later settled with the landowners on the amount of just compensation. After settlement, the landowners sought attorneys' fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, while the government moved for summary judgment that such fees are unavailable in condemnation proceedings. The court granted the government's motion and denied the fee application, holding that subsection (d)(1)(A) of the EAJA does not apply to condemnation cases based on the statute's text, legislative history, and the prevailing interpretation in other decisions. The court reasoned that condemnation actions present unique issues regarding who qualifies as a prevailing party and whether the government's position was substantially justified, making the Act's framework a poor fit, and noted that such proceedings are otherwise governed by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act.
Nevada Power Company filed suit against the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management after being required to deposit over $1.4 million to reimburse the agency for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement in connection with applications for rights-of-way across public lands needed for a large electric generation and transmission project. The company sought a declaratory judgment that the relevant BLM cost-reimbursement regulations (43 C.F.R. §§ 2802.1-2 and 2803.1-1) are invalid under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act because they do not require the Secretary to consider statutory factors such as reasonableness and public benefit when assessing costs. The court analyzed the text of FLPMA § 304(b), legislative history, and principles of administrative deference, concluding that the statute requires the agency to take those factors into account when determining the amount of reimbursable costs.
This case involved a licensed Utah physician suing state narcotics investigators under the federal Civil Rights Acts for alleged violations arising from an investigation into suspicious morphine and Demerol prescriptions written on his pads. The court found that the defendants acted in their official capacities to inspect narcotics records after discovering irregularities at pharmacies and receiving information about possible forgeries or thefts. Plaintiff refused to provide patient or dispensing records beyond basic order forms, leading to his arrest for failure to maintain required records under state law. The court concluded there was no civil rights violation because the officers had reasonable grounds for their inquiries and the arrest was supported by probable cause, with no evidence of malice or improper conduct.
This case involves the United States suing Beatrice Foods Company for an alleged antitrust conspiracy under the Sherman Act in the sale of dairy products to federal institutions in Utah and surrounding areas, along with the submission of false claims based on collusive bidding and price-fixing. The defendant moved to dismiss Count II of the complaint, which sought double damages and forfeitures under the False Claims Act, arguing that Section 4A of the Clayton Act provides the government's exclusive remedy limited to single damages for antitrust-related injuries. The court denied the motion, holding that the passage of Section 4A was intended to expand the government's antitrust recovery options following a prior Supreme Court ruling, not to restrict preexisting remedies available under the False Claims Act for false claims submitted pursuant to rigged contracts. The opinion notes that the government cannot recover duplicate damages for the same injuries but concludes there is no indication Congress meant to bar False Claims Act recovery in this context, and dismissal would leave the government without recourse if antitrust defenses succeed.
The consolidated cases involved three Utah public school students suspended or expelled for refusing to comply with school regulations limiting the length or style of male students' hair. The students, through their parents, sued school officials under federal civil rights statutes and the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming the rules violated rights to privacy, freedom of expression, due process, and equal protection. After hearing evidence, the court upheld the regulations as a valid exercise of school board authority, finding no constitutional violation in their enforcement through suspension pending compliance. It followed the prevailing line of authority from other federal courts and concluded that the rules were neither vague, overbroad, nor an infringement on the cited rights under the facts presented.
