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
 
FREE EXCERPT

Utah Law Developments

Vol. 32 No. 2 Pg. 38

Utah Bar Journal

April, 2019

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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP