Utah Law Developments, 0419 UTBJ, Vol. 32, No. 2. 38
| Author | Rodney R. Parker, Dani Cepernich, Scott Elder, Nathanael Mitchell, Adam Pace, and Andrew Roth |
| Position | Vol. 32 2 Pg. 38 |
March,
2019
Appellate
Highlights
Rodney
R. Parker, Dani Cepernich, Scott Elder, Nathanael Mitchell,
Adam Pace, and Andrew Roth
Editor’s
Note: The following appellate cases of interest were
recently decided by the Utah Supreme Court, Utah Court of
Appeals, and United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The following summaries have been prepared by the authoring
attorneys listed above, who are solely responsible for their
content.
UTAH
SUPREME COURT
State
v. Van Huizen, 2019 UT 01 (Jan. 7, 2019)
After
pleading guilty to armed robbery, a juvenile defendant
challenged his bindover based on a claim of judicial bias
discovered after sentencing. The court of appeals vacated the
conviction. Reversing, the supreme court held the court of
appeals erred in exempting the defendant’s judicial
bias claim from the preservation rule. The court emphasized
that rules governing preservation apply to all
cases, even those presenting issues of judicial
bias.
HealthBanc
v. Synergy, 2018 UT 61 (Dec. 21, 2018)
This
case arose from a dispute over a royalty agreement between a
company that sold a health supplement and a buyer who
asserted that the seller did not own the rights to the
product as represented in the contract between them. On
certification from the federal district court, the court held
that the economic loss rule barred the
plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement claims, which were
duplicative of its breach of contract claim.
However, the court did not resolve the broader question of
whether there may ever be a fraudulent inducement claim that
would not be barred by the economic loss rule.
Salt
Lake City v. Jordan River Restoration Network, 2018 UT
62 (Dec. 20, 2018)
This
case involved an appeal from the district court’s
reversal of the Salt Lake City Records Appeal Board’s
determination that Salt Lake City should have granted a fee
waiver to the Jordan River Restoration Network in connection
with its GRAMA request. The Utah Supreme Court
rejected JRRN’s contention that Salt Lake City
lacked standing to petition the district court for judicial
review because it was essentially appealing its own ruling,
given its Records Appeal Board’s decision was at
issue. Having concluded Salt Lake City had standing,
the court clarified the standard of review, burden of proof,
and scope of review for a petition for judicial review of a
GRAMA decision.
Baker
v. Carlson, 2018 UT 59 (Nov. 28, 2018)
Holladay
City approved two resolutions to enable a developer to
redevelop the land on which the old Cottonwood Mall once
stood. A group of Holladay citizens petitioned to subject
these resolutions to vote by public referendum. Applying the
test set forth in Carter v. Lehi City, 2012 UT 2,
269 P.3d 141, the court affirmed the district court’s
ruling that the first resolution was referable
because it was approved pursuant to the City’s
legislative power, and that the second was not referable,
because it was approved pursuant to the City’s
administrative power.
UTAH
COURT OF APPEALS
Arreguin-Leon
v. Hadco Construction, 2018 UT App 225 (Dec. 13,
2018)
The
district court allowed an expert witness to provide opinions
regarding causation of an injury despite the fact that the
expert had not disclosed this opinion in his deposition. The
court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that
when an expert has been locked into his opinions in a
deposition – by such questions as “do you have
any other opinions that you expect to offer at trial”
– the expert is not allowed to offer additional
undisclosed opinions at trial, just as an expert who
provides a report would be limited to opinions disclosed in
her report.
In
re Adoption of B.N.A., 2018 UT App 224 (Dec. 6,
2018)
At
issue in this case was whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial