Utah Law Developments

• Publication year: 2016
• Pages: 30
• Citation: Vol. 29 No. 6 Pg. 30

Utah Law Developments No. Vol. 29 No. 6 Pg. 30 Utah Bar Journal December, 2016

November, 2016

Appellate Highlights

Rodney R. Parker, Dani N. Cepernich, 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.

Federated Capital Corp. v. Libby, 2016 UT 41 (Sept. 6, 2016)

In this consolidated case, the Utah Supreme Court held that an enforceable forum selection clause does not preclude application of Utah’s borrowing statute. The forum selection clause required that the case be governed by all of Utah’s law, both procedural and substantive. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the borrowing statute applies only when the claim is not actionable in the foreign jurisdiction solely because of the lapse of time.

Craig v. Provo City, 2016 UT 40 (Aug. 26, 2016)

The plaintiffs’ suit against Provo City was timely when initially filed, but the complaint was dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiffs failed to submit an “undertaking” or bond as required by statute. By the time the plaintiffs refiled, it was beyond the one-year filing requirement of the Governmental Immunity Act. The supreme court held that Utah Code Section 78B-2-111 (the Savings Statute) could not sustain the timeliness of a re-filed suit against a governmental entity because the Governmental Immunity Act speaks comprehensively to the timing of such a suit in a manner precluding operation of the Savings Statute.

Nevares v. Adoptive Couple, 2016 UT 39 (Aug. 26, 2016)

In this appeal of a paternity dispute, the supreme court held the district court lacked jurisdiction to determine paternity under the Utah Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), where the child lived in Utah for eight days after being born within the state, relocated to Illinois with the adoptive parents before the filing of the petition, the adoptive parents resided in Illinois for longer than five years, neither of the biological parents lived in Utah, and an Illinois court was capable of exercising jurisdiction under the uniform act.

Benda v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City, 2016 UT 37 (Aug. 25, 2016)

In this case, the Utah Supreme Court adopted a cause of action for parents’ right of filial consortium due to tortious injury to their minor child. The cause of action is derivative of the child’s cause of action. To recover under such a claim, the injury to the child must meet the requirements of Utah Code Section 30-2-11(5).

Gailey v. State, 2016 UT 35 (Aug. 1, 2016)

The court rejected a constitutional challenge and reaffirmed its case law holding that Utah’s Plea Withdrawal Statute, Utah Code Section 77-13-6, procedurally cuts off a defendant’s right to a direct appeal post-sentencing. The supreme court explained that a defendant may pursue claims challenging an invalid plea collaterally through post-conviction proceedings.

Ellis-Hall Consultants v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 2016 UT 34 (July 28, 2016)

This case centered on the Public Service Commission’s position on pricing methodologies. The Utah Supreme Court held that judicial review of an agency decision, in contrast to federal courts, would apply a non-deferential, correctness standard to an appeal based on a pure question of law, which includes an agency’s interpretation of its own orders and regulatory enactments.

State v. Sanchez, 2016 UT App 189 (Sept. 1, 2016)

In an appeal from convictions for murder and obstruction of justice, defendant argued the lower court erred in excluding portions of a police interview in which defendant stated he fought with the...