Noteworthy Laws Passed During the 2009 Legislative Session
| Jurisdiction | Utah,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 22 No. 4 Pg. 45 |
| Pages | 45 |
| Publication year | 2009 |
Vol. 22, No. 4, 45. Noteworthy Laws Passed During the 2009 Legislative Session
Vol. 22, No.4
July/August 2009
During the 2009 General Legislative Session, almost 400 bills were passed. This article presents a brief summary of a few bills enacted during the session that may be of interest to members of the Utah Bar.
Private Attorney General Doctrine
Senate Bill 53, Awarding of Attorney Fees, abolished the private attorney general doctrine, a common law doctrine under which a court could award attorney fees to a plaintiff who vindicated a strong or societally important public policy. S.B. 53 is in direct response to the recent cases of Utahns For Better Dental health-Davis, inc. v. Davis County Clerk, 2007 UT 97, 175 P. 3d 1036, and Culbertson v. Board of County Commissioners, 2008 UT App 22, 177 P. 3d 621. In both of these cases, the district court had denied the plaintiffs' request for attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine, but the appellate court reversed the district court and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees under the doctrine. Under S.B. 53, courts cannot award attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine in any action filed after May 12, 2009.
Eminent Domain
Senate Bill 83, Condemnation Amendments, adds a new section to the eminent domain statutes. S.B. 83 addresses the situation in which a condemnor purchases property from a condemnee under the threat of condemnation. In such a circumstance, the condemnor must provide the condemnee with a written statement identifying the public use for which the property is being acquired. If the condemnor puts the property to the public use identified in the statement, the condemnor has no further obligations to the condemnee. However, if, after the condemnor has acquired the property, the condemnor intends to use the property for any purpose other than the public use identified in the statement, the condemnor must offer to sell the property back to the condemnee for the original acquisition price. The condemnor must also offer to sell the property back to the condemnee if the property has not been put to public use and the condemnor intends to sell or transfer the property. S.B. 83 also provides that a condemnee can waive his or her right to repurchase the...
To continue reading
Request your trial