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

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.


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...

To continue reading