Albert Sherman Christensen

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.

propertyfederal powerprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal power

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.

civil rightscriminal lawhealthcare

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.

business & regulatory

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.

civil rightsfree speech

This case involved a challenge by competing truck carriers to an Interstate Commerce Commission order granting Barton Truck Line, Inc. permanent authority to provide motor carrier services for general commodities and explosives in northeastern Nevada, including the ability to interline shipments. The court affirmed the Commission's grant of general commodity authority without interline restrictions, finding substantial evidence supported the need for such service and that any impact on protestants was minor compared to public benefits. However, it set aside the unrestricted explosives authority because the evidence of need was limited to only two users and insufficient to justify broad authority over the entire route without restrictions. The decision was based on reviewing whether the Commission's actions were supported by substantial evidence on the record.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This class action challenged Utah's one-year residency requirement for welfare eligibility and its procedures for notice and hearings before denying or terminating benefits. The court held the residency requirement unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the right to travel, regardless of whether the benefits came from state or federal funds. It further ruled that Utah's hearing process violated due process by failing to provide an evidentiary hearing with the opportunity to appear, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses before any denial or termination. The court extended these protections to initial applicants as well as current recipients, reasoning that welfare benefits are statutory entitlements that trigger constitutional safeguards at the point of need. It granted a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the residency rule and requiring hearings meeting the specified standards.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In Decker v. Fillis, the plaintiff challenged Salt Lake City Ordinance 32-1-16, a vagrancy law under which he had been arrested for roaming without lawful business and having no visible means of support, seeking a declaratory judgment that it was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement. The court treated the case as an individual action rather than a class action and found a justiciable controversy under federal jurisdiction provisions including 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. It declared subdivisions 1, 3, and 6 of the ordinance invalid on the grounds that they penalize economic status or mere presence in public without reasonable guidelines, thereby violating substantive due process by broadly restricting liberty of movement and allowing unchecked police discretion. The court declined to invalidate the entire ordinance or award damages, limiting relief to the challenged provisions directly tied to the plaintiff's circumstances.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal power

This case concerned a California plaintiff who exchanged real property for promissory notes and an assignment of a Utah real estate contract, which the court determined constituted the sale of a security under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; the plaintiff alleged and the jury found that he was induced to enter the transaction by fraudulent representations made by defendant Anderson on behalf of the corporate defendant. The jury established liability under federal securities law and common law fraud, though not under the Utah Uniform Securities Act because the sale occurred outside Utah. On the remaining issues of damages, the court decided to apply the out-of-pocket rule rather than the benefit-of-the-bargain rule, reasoning that the plaintiff's own inflated valuation of the California property made the latter rule inappropriate and that a conflicts-of-laws analysis weighing contacts, governmental interests, and public policies of Utah, California, and federal securities law supported the out-of-pocket measure to avoid a windfall and align with the policies of all relevant jurisdictions.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In Romney v. Richard Prows, Inc., an attorney and consultant sued developers who allegedly induced him through misrepresentations to provide extensive professional services for a condominium project in exchange for a share of profits from land development and construction, asserting that the arrangement formed an investment contract or security under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to invoke federal jurisdiction. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that no federal question existed because the agreement did not qualify as a security. The core reasoning was that the arrangement was a joint venture or partnership in which the plaintiff's prospective profits depended substantially on his own active contributions and efforts rather than solely on the efforts of others, distinguishing it from precedents involving passive investors.

business & regulatory

The case concerned a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Ray Wayne Pierce after his state conviction for second-degree murder, in which he challenged the constitutionality of the M'Naghten test for legal insanity as applied to his claim of toxic psychosis from glue sniffing. Pierce also contested the trial court's instructions on voluntary intoxication and intent, arguing they deprived him of due process by failing to adequately address delusions or hallucinations. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing, noting that state court proceedings did not fully resolve the federal constitutional questions raised, including whether contemporary psychiatric knowledge required a different insanity standard like the Durham test. The court examined whether the M'Naghten rule remained permissible and whether the intoxication instructions neutralized the insanity defense or intent elements.

criminal lawprocedure

In Dodge v. Turner, a federal district court considered a habeas corpus petition from David W. Dodge, who was serving concurrent sentences for forgery and second-degree burglary after state convictions. Dodge alleged that his forgery conviction resulted from an unknowing guilty plea without counsel, and that his burglary conviction relied on evidence obtained through illegal searches without warrants or probable cause, violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court found that Dodge had not been informed of his right to appointed counsel at state expense and did not intelligently waive that right, rendering the forgery plea invalid. For the burglary conviction, the court held that the evidence was inadmissible under Mapp v. Ohio because the judgment was not yet final when that decision was issued, and objections were properly raised on appeal. The court granted the writ, declaring both convictions void while noting that detention could continue under a separate unchallenged sentence.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a husband's claim for damages for loss of consortium arising from negligent injuries to his wife that resulted in the loss of her arm. The defendants moved to strike the consortium claims on the ground that Utah law does not recognize such a cause of action. The court examined Utah's married women's statutes, particularly section 30-2-4, which states there shall be no right of recovery by the husband on account of personal injury or wrong to his wife and allows the wife to recover as if unmarried. Based on the language and history of these statutes, the court held that Utah does not permit a husband to recover for loss of consortium and granted the motions to strike.

family lawtorts & liability

This case involved Silver King Mines, Inc. and its president K.L. Stoker suing the Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission to prevent them from issuing press releases or otherwise instigating publicity about administrative proceedings, stop-order hearings, and subpoena enforcement actions against the company without a prior adjudication of violations. The court found that the SEC had previously released details of fraud and other charges in connection with a 1961 registration statement hearing that was later settled without a decision, causing adverse publicity. It decided to grant a limited injunction barring the defendants from instigating such publicity regarding judicial or administrative matters unless the Commission has reason to believe a violation within its authority has occurred and public welfare requires disclosure in a public proceeding. The court reasoned that plaintiffs lacked an adequate legal remedy and that reasonable restraints were needed to avoid unwarranted harm while preserving the agency's discretion to respond to press inquiries and fulfill its duties. Jurisdiction was retained for future modifications.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This is a federal habeas corpus case brought by state prisoners serving sentences for second-degree murder, who claimed that the prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony at trial and that they were denied appointed counsel to argue their state habeas appeal. The court found that the petitioners did not prove the prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony, agreeing with the state court's assessment that mere inconsistencies in a witness's statements did not establish perjury or prosecutorial knowledge of it. On the counsel issue, the court held that appointed counsel must serve as an advocate presenting the clients' arguments, rather than solely as amicus curiae evaluating the merits, drawing on standards from Ellis v. United States, and that the state court's refusal to appoint new counsel for oral argument implicated due process and equal protection concerns. The decision addresses exhaustion of state remedies and the scope of federal review under Townsend v. Sain.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over numerous lode mining claims on public land in Utah involving valuable beryllium deposits, where plaintiff Ranchers Exploration attempted to relocate claims after alleging defendants had made no valid mineral discoveries and had used force to block access. Defendants countered that their claims were valid or protected under the pedis possessio doctrine for ongoing exploration, and that plaintiff was barred by estoppel or unclean hands due to conduct by an associate. The court limited trial to six bellwether claims to resolve key issues of prior discoveries, pedis possessio rights, and equitable defenses while reserving antitrust and damages claims. It reasoned that the outcome turned on reconciling competing policies in mining law, including requirements for mineral discovery and good-faith occupation, rather than credibility disputes, and noted that one point regarding equitable bars appeared dispositive based on pre-trial findings.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case concerned whether the Sixth Amendment requires the appointment of qualified legal counsel to represent military personnel facing serious charges in special courts-martial, and whether the representation provided to petitioner James E. Stapley met constitutional standards. Stapley, a 19-year-old soldier with no prior disciplinary issues, was tried before a special court-martial on multiple charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including fraud-related offenses, after being assigned defense counsel who were a veterinarian and a second lieutenant with no legal training or experience. The court found that the appointed counsel lacked any meaningful ability to provide legal assistance, that Stapley was effectively denied his request for competent representation, and that he was advised to plead guilty under questionable circumstances. It held that the special court-martial lacked jurisdiction due to the violation of the petitioner's constitutional rights to counsel and due process, and ordered his discharge from confinement. The reasoning centered on the principle that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of assistance of counsel cannot be satisfied by the mere appointment of unqualified personnel, even in military proceedings, absent true military necessity.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal power

This antitrust case under the Sherman and Clayton Acts involved plaintiff Fisher Baking Company suing General Baking Company and others for alleged violations involving bakery products. General Baking, a New York corporation, moved to dismiss the complaint against it for lack of venue and to quash service of process, claiming it was not an inhabitant of, found in, or transacting business in the District of Utah. The court granted the motion, holding that General's indirect connections through its subsidiaries Eddy Bakeries and Royal Baking did not establish sufficient contacts or control to subject the parent to suit in Utah. The reasoning centered on the subsidiaries' independent operations in line with the parent-subsidiary relationship under the precedent of Cannon Manufacturing Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co., with General having no direct property, sales, or licensing activity in the state.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a private antitrust suit by Utah Gas Pipelines Corporation against El Paso Natural Gas Company, Mountain Fuel Supply, and Sinclair Oil & Gas, claiming treble damages under the Clayton Act for alleged Sherman Act violations through conspiracy and monopolization of natural gas pipelines in Utah and surrounding states, plus a Section 7 claim against El Paso for acquiring Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corporation that allegedly lessened competition and harmed the plaintiff's failed attempts to build a pipeline. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of jurisdiction, primary jurisdiction of state regulators, and other grounds, and alternatively to sever the Section 7 claim, strike related allegations, or require separate counts for the different statutory claims. The court granted the request to plead the Section 7 claim in a self-sufficient separate count against El Paso, struck paragraph 23, denied the motions to dismiss on grounds including primary jurisdiction and indispensability of parties, and set deadlines for an amended complaint and further pretrial steps. The rulings rested on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requirements for clear pleading of multiple claims while finding the antitrust allegations adequate to survive dismissal at this stage.

business & regulatoryprocedure