Utah Law Developments

• Publication year: 2015
• Pages: 38
• Citation: Vol. 28 No. 1 Pg. 38

Utah Law Developments Vol. 28 No. 1 Pg. 38 Utah Bar Journal February, 2015

January, 2015.

Appellate Highlights

Rodney R. Parker andjulianne P. Blanch, J.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following appellate cases of interest were recently decided by the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, and Utah Court of Appeals

United States v. Titley, 770 F.3d 1357 (10th Cir. 2014) The defendant brought an equal protection challenge to the provision of the Armed and Career Criminal Act that defines a "serious drug offense" to include a state crime for "manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute, a controlled substance for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law." United States v. Title, 770 F.3d 1357, 1358 (10th Cir. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Applying rational basis review, the Tenth Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(3)(2)(A), defining "serious drug offense, " does not violate equal protection, even if criminal conduct may qualify as a "serious drug offense" in one state but not another.

Headwaters Resources, Inc. v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., 770 F.3d 885 (10th Cir. 2014)

The plaintiffs carried commercial general liability coverage through the defendant, and the policy included a broad exclusion for liability associated with pollution, "a ubiquitous feature of insurance litigation" since the 1970s. Headwaters Res., Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 770 F.3d 885, 889 (10th Cir. 2014). Two schools of thought have emerged in resolving such litigation. Some courts enforce the pollution exclusions, and others find the exclusions too ambiguous to enforce because of how broadly they are written. Utah has not taken a position on the issue. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment that the broad language of the pollution exclusions, although possibly ambiguous, applied because the complaints alleged traditional environmental pollution mat broad exclusions contemplate.

United States v. Heineman, 767 F.3d 970 (10th Cir. 2014)

The defendant was convicted of one count of sending an interstate threat in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) when he a sent racist death threat by email to a professor at the University of Utah. The district court declined to give the defendant's requested instruction that the government must prove that the defendant intended the communication to be received as a threat, and it also denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges over the government's failure to establish that element. The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the district court was required to find that the defendant intended his email to be threatening before it could convict him of sending an interstate threat in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).

Bolden v. Doe (In re Adoption of J.S.), 2014 UT 51 (Nov. 4, 2014)

In this adoption matter, the district court denied an unwed father's motion to intervene and object to the adoption of his child because he failed to preserve his legal rights as a father by filing a paternity affidavit within the time prescribed by the Utah Adoption Act. Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-1210) (LexisNexis Supp 2014). The affidavit is required to include a statement under oath establishing paternity, as well as a statement that the father is able and willing to provide for the child. On appeal, the father challenged the constitutionality of the affidavit requirement, arguing that it violates both due process and equal protection. A majority of the Utah Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the paternity affidavit requirement and affirmed the district court's denial of the father's motion to intervene. Two of the five justices dissented, agreeing with the father that the paternity affidavit requirement violates equal protection because the different treatment of unwed mothers and fathers is discriminatory on the basis of gender and it is not justified under the intermediate scrutiny standard.

State v. Brown, 2014 UT 48, 772 Utah Adv. Rep. 16 (Oct. 24, 2014)

A victim attempted to intervene in this criminal matter to assert a claim for restitution of travel expenses and lost wages incurred in attending hearings in the criminal proceedings. The district court denied the motion to intervene, concluding that the victim lacked standing to assert the restitution claim and that the amounts sought were not recoverable in restitution. The...