Utah Law Developments

• Jurisdiction: Utah,United States
• Citation: Vol. 29 No. 3 Pg. 30
• Pages: 30
• Publication year: 2016

Utah Law Developments No. Vol. 29 No. 3 Pg. 30 Utah Bar Journal June, 2016

May, 2016

Appellate Highlights

Rodney R. Parker, Dani N. Cepernich, NathanaelJ. Mitchell, Adam M. Pace, and Taymour B. Semnani

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

Cordova v. City of Albuquerque, __F.3d__, 2016 WL 873347 (10th Cir. Mar. 8, 2016)

Plaintiff pursued § 1983 claims for malicious prosecution, excessive force, and interference with the right of familial association. Discussing the malicious prosecution claim, the Tenth Circuit held that dismissal of an underlying case on speedy trial grounds after five years of delay was not a favorable termination sufficient to support a claim for malicious prosecution, where the circumstances surrounding dismissal were not indicative of the party's innocence. Separately, the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the familial association claim, holding that no constitutional violation occurred, where officers imposed a blanket restriction on visitors and plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that the officers intended to interfere with a protected relationship.

Tripodi v. Welch, 810 F.3d 761 (10th Cir. Jan. 13, 2016)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that a default judgment against the plaintiff was not dischargeable in bankruptcy because it fell within 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (19), which renders debts nondischargeable when they arise in connection with a violation of state or federal securities law. In doing so, the Tenth Circuit Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that it should extend the principle that default judgments generally are not given preclusive effect in bankruptcy to Section 523(a) (19). That section "sought to close' [t]his loophole in the law' and 'hold accountable those who violate securities laws after a government unit or private suit results in a judgment or settlement against the wrongdoer.'" Id. at 767 (citation omitted).

Q-2 L.L.C. v. Hughes, 2016 UT 8 (Feb. 16, 2016)

The Utah Supreme Court reaffirmed the implication of its prior decisions regarding how and when a party acquires title under the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence and expressly held that the doctrine confers title by operation of law at the time the elements of the doctrine are satisfied. A judicial adjudication of a boundary by acquiescence does not grant title but merely recognizes the title that has already vested.

Judge v. Saltz Plastic Surgery, P.C., 2016 UT 7 (Feb. 4, 2016)

In the underlying case, a patient sued her plastic surgeon for publication of private facts and other claims when pre- and post-operative photographs of her were aired on the evening news. The Utah Supreme Court adopted a new element from section 652D(b) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which requires a plaintiff suing for publication of private facts to show that the matter publicized is not of legitimate concern to the public. This element is normally a jury question if reasonable minds can differ concerning the newsworthiness of...