Utah Law Developments, 1017 UTBJ, Vol. 30, No. 5. 40

Author:Rodney R. Parker, Dani N. Cepernich, Scott A. Elder, Nathanael J. Mitchell, and Adam M. Pace, J.
 
FREE EXCERPT

Utah Law Developments

Vol. 30 No. 5 Pg. 40

Utah Bar Journal

October, 2017

September, 2017

Appellate Highlights

Rodney R. Parker, Dani N. Cepernich, Scott A. Elder, Nathanael J. Mitchell, and Adam M. Pace, J.

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,

State v. Robertson

2017 UT 27 (May 15, 2017)

Overruling a prior interpretation of Utah Code section 76-1-404, the court formally abandoned the "dual sovereignty doctrine," which had permitted subsequent criminal prosecutions by different sovereigns for the same offense. In doing so, the court determined that the Blockburger-Sosa test was the appropriate standard for determining whether section 76-1-404 operated as a bar to subsequent prosecution. The court then held that 76-1-404 barred a state prosecution for sexual exploitation of a minor where the federal government had already convicted the defendant based on the same offense and same conduct.

2010-1RADC/CADC Venture, LLC v. Dos Lagos, LLC

2017 UT 29 (June 2, 2017)

The court here affirmed a decision allowing the joinder of a co-holder of a promissory note after the statute of limitations had expired because there was identity of interest between the plaintiffs and the debtor did not suffer any prejudice. Although the court recognized that privity of contract is not alone sufficient to create identity of interest, here, where RADC and Utah First were co-holders of a single note and the action was to recover the entire amount on the note, there was sufficient identity of interest for relation back.

State v. Outzen

2017 UT 30 (June 7, 2017)

The court held that" [a] person violates Utah Code section 4l-6a-517 if he or she operates or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle with any measurable amount or metabolite of a controlled substance in his or her body." Id. ¶ 24. Section 4l-6a-517 does not require an additional finding of impairment, the statute does not create a status offense that violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the statute does not violate the Utah Constitution's uniform operation of laws provision. Id.

Eagle Mountain City v. Parsons, Kinghorn & Harris, P.C. 2017 UT 31 (June 7, 2017)

The Utah...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP