Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute over a proposed constitutional amendment in Utah, referred to as Amendment D. The amendment, proposed by the Utah State Legislature, seeks to change the state constitution in three significant ways: specifying that the right to alter or reform the government can only be exercised through constitutional processes, banning foreign influence in the initiative and referendum processes, and granting the Legislature unlimited power to amend or repeal any law passed by a citizen initiative. The controversy centers on whether the amendment was properly submitted to voters and whether it was published as required by the Utah Constitution.The Third Judicial District Court in Salt Lake County reviewed the case and found that the Legislature had not complied with the constitutional requirements for submitting and publishing the proposed amendment. The court ruled that the ballot title for Amendment D was misleading and did not accurately reflect the substance of the amendment, thus failing to meet the Submission Clause of the Utah Constitution. Additionally, the court found that the Legislature did not cause the amendment to be published in newspapers across the state for two months preceding the election, as required by the Publication Clause. Consequently, the district court issued a preliminary injunction declaring Amendment D void and ordered that any votes cast on the amendment not be counted.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the district court's decision and affirmed the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court agreed that the ballot title was misleading and did not provide voters with a clear understanding of what they were voting for or against, thus violating the Submission Clause. The Court also held that the Legislature failed to comply with the Publication Clause by not ensuring continuous publication of the amendment's text in newspapers for the required two-month period. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the balance of harms and the public interest favored issuing the preliminary injunction. As a result, Amendment D was declared void, and any votes cast on it will have no effect. View "League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature" on Justia Law

In 2020, Utah law temporarily allowed municipalities to annex unincorporated areas without a petition or county consent. During this period, the Town of Hideout annexed land in Summit County. After receiving a certificate of annexation from the Lieutenant Governor, Summit County challenged the annexation and the related municipal ordinance in district court, claiming procedural violations and seeking to invalidate the annexation.The Fourth Judicial District Court in Wasatch County ruled in favor of Summit County, granting summary judgment on the grounds that Summit County had standing to challenge the annexation and that the annexation ordinance was invalid due to procedural issues. The court found that Summit County had standing under various statutes and the doctrine of public interest standing.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that Summit County lacked a legally protectible interest under the relevant statutory scheme, which did not provide counties with a right to challenge annexations. The court also determined that the public interest standing doctrine could not compensate for this lack of a legally protectible interest because the legislature had explicitly excluded counties from the annexation process. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the district court to dismiss the case. View "Hideout v. Summit County" on Justia Law

In 2021, Derek Willden was charged with multiple counts of physical and sexual assault. During trial preparations, the State requested that Willden disclose certain information under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b), specifically audio recordings of interviews conducted by Willden’s counsel with witnesses. Willden objected, claiming the recordings were protected as attorney work product and that compelled disclosure would violate both Rule 16(b)(4) and his constitutional rights. The district court disagreed and ordered Willden to turn over the recordings within thirty days. Willden then sought an interlocutory appeal, which the court of appeals granted, and the case was recalled for direct review.The district court, presided over by the Honorable Elizabeth A. Hruby-Mills of the Third District, Salt Lake County, initially ruled in favor of the State’s discovery motion. The court reasoned that the recordings could be redacted to exclude any attorney’s opinions, analysis, or strategy, thus not constituting protected work product. Willden was given thirty days to comply with the order. Before the deadline, Willden petitioned for an interlocutory appeal, which was granted by the court of appeals, and the case was subsequently recalled for direct review by the Utah Supreme Court.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on the interpretation of Rule 16(b) following its 2021 amendment. The court held that the recorded interviews were indeed attorney work product and thus protected from compelled disclosure under Rule 16(b)(4). The court emphasized that the amended rule explicitly protects attorney work product from disclosure, without distinguishing between "core" and "factual" work product. Consequently, the district court’s order was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The court did not address Willden’s constitutional arguments, as the case was resolved based on the interpretation of Rule 16(b). View "State v. Willden" on Justia Law

In this case, Tiffany Bingham challenged the constitutionality of the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act’s four-year statute of repose after her medical malpractice claim against Dr. George C. Gourley and Dr. McKay L. Platt was dismissed. Bingham underwent surgeries in 2010, experienced complications, and discovered in 2017 that the surgeries had caused damage, leading to the removal of her kidney. She filed her lawsuit in 2020, more than four years after the alleged malpractice, prompting the dismissal of her claim under the statute of repose.The Fourth District Court in Provo dismissed Bingham’s complaint, concluding that the statute of repose was constitutional. The court found that the statute did not violate the Open Courts Clause, the Uniform Operation of Laws Provision, or the Equal Protection Clause. The court reasoned that the statute was a non-arbitrary means of addressing the social and economic issues related to rising medical malpractice insurance costs and was reasonably necessary to achieve the legislative goal of stabilizing insurance premiums.The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that Bingham failed to demonstrate that the statute of repose violated the Open Courts Clause, as the legislature’s findings of a health care crisis were fairly debatable and the statute was a reasonable means to address that crisis. The court also found that the statute did not violate the Uniform Operation of Laws Provision, as it was reasonably necessary to achieve the legislative goals and actually and substantially furthered those goals. Finally, the court concluded that the statute did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as it was rationally related to a legitimate public purpose and did not impair a fundamental right. View "Bingham v. Gourley" on Justia Law

Phil Lyman sought extraordinary relief from the Utah Supreme Court regarding the 2024 primary election for the Utah Republican Party. He requested the court annul the primary election results and certify him as the Republican nominee for Governor in the general election. Lyman argued that the Republican Party’s internal rules should override Utah’s election laws, a claim previously rejected by the court in Utah Republican Party v. Cox. Additionally, Lyman sought the production of voter signatures from nominating petitions and the removal of Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson and Governor Spencer Cox from office for alleged malfeasance.The lower courts had not reviewed this case. Lyman filed his petition directly with the Utah Supreme Court, bypassing the district court. He argued that it was impractical to file in the district court due to the urgency of the impending general election deadlines and the long-standing issues surrounding Senate Bill 54, which had been litigated in various courts.The Utah Supreme Court denied Lyman’s petition. The court held that the Republican Party’s internal rules do not override state election laws, reaffirming its decision in Utah Republican Party v. Cox. The court also found that Lyman had not demonstrated why it was impractical to seek relief in the district court and noted that he could not assert claims on behalf of other candidates. Additionally, the court determined that Lyman had not exhausted his administrative remedies under the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) for his request for voter signatures. Finally, the court found no viable factual or legal basis for Lyman’s request to remove Henderson and Cox from office. Consequently, the court denied Lyman’s petition for extraordinary relief and his related injunction motions as moot. View "Lyman v. Cox" on Justia Law

Colby Jenkins contested the results of the 2024 primary election for the Utah Republican Party candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Utah’s Second Congressional District. After a recount, election officials determined that Celeste Maloy had won by a narrow margin. Jenkins challenged the rejection of certain ballots that were deemed untimely because they were not postmarked by the deadline specified in Utah’s election code. He argued that these ballots were mailed before election day but were delayed in receiving a postmark due to variations in U.S. Postal Service practices.The Lieutenant Governor questioned whether Jenkins had the standing to assert constitutional arguments on behalf of the voters whose ballots were not counted. However, the court did not need to decide on this issue because Jenkins failed to establish that he was entitled to the relief he sought. Jenkins argued that the statutory postmark requirement resulted in unequal treatment of voters and interfered with the fundamental right to vote. However, he did not adequately brief these constitutional arguments, failing to cite relevant case law or provide sufficient analysis.The Utah Supreme Court denied Jenkins’s petition for extraordinary relief. The court held that Jenkins did not meet his burden of demonstrating a constitutional violation. Specifically, Jenkins did not show that election officials failed to comply with any statutory mandate, nor did he provide adequate legal support for his claims that the postmark requirement was unconstitutional. The court concluded that voters could ensure their ballots were timely postmarked by mailing them well in advance or by taking them directly to the post office. Therefore, the petition was denied. View "Jenkins v. Beaver County" on Justia Law

A plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a defendant, alleging that the defendant's negligence caused a car accident resulting in significant injuries. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant ran a red light and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant denied the allegations, arguing that the light was green and that the plaintiff was at fault for the accident.The trial court, a state district court, heard the case and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding substantial damages. The defendant appealed the decision to the state court of appeals, arguing that the trial court made several errors, including improper jury instructions and the exclusion of certain evidence that could have supported the defendant's case.The state court of appeals reviewed the case and upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the jury instructions were appropriate and that the exclusion of evidence did not prejudice the defendant's case. The defendant then appealed to the state's highest court, the State Supreme Court, seeking further review.The State Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its jury instructions or in its evidentiary rulings. The court emphasized that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court's actions were within the bounds of its discretion. The Supreme Court's decision effectively ended the defendant's appeals, leaving the jury's award to the plaintiff intact. View "State v. Chadwick" on Justia Law

In 2018, Brevan Bringhurst Baugh was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The prosecution presented evidence of three instances of alleged abuse, distinguished by location, while the charges were distinguished by date. During closing arguments, the prosecution told the jury they could use any two of the three instances to fulfill the elements of the charged counts. The jury convicted Baugh on one count and acquitted him on the other.Baugh appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals, arguing that the jury might not have unanimously agreed on which instance of abuse supported the conviction. He also claimed his counsel was ineffective for not requesting specific jury instructions on unanimity. The court of appeals agreed, finding that the jury instructions were ambiguous and could have led to a non-unanimous verdict. The court vacated Baugh’s conviction.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case on certiorari. The court affirmed the court of appeals' decision, holding that Baugh’s counsel performed deficiently by failing to request more specific unanimity instructions. The court noted that the risk of a non-unanimous verdict was significant due to the way the evidence and charges were presented. The court also found that there was a reasonable probability that the jury would not have convicted Baugh if proper unanimity instructions had been given. Therefore, the court concluded that Baugh’s counsel was ineffective, and the conviction was vacated. View "State v. Baugh" on Justia Law

A nonprofit entity, Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory (Sports Medicine), sought a property tax exemption for its South Jordan facility, claiming it was used exclusively for charitable purposes. Sports Medicine performs testing for both professional sports organizations at market rates and for government agencies and charitable organizations at discounted or no cost. It argued that the revenue from market-rate testing supports its charitable mission and that its vacant property space is intended for future charitable use.The Salt Lake County Board of Equalization denied the exemption, stating the property was not used exclusively for charitable purposes. Sports Medicine appealed to the Utah State Tax Commission, which affirmed the Board's decision. Sports Medicine then sought judicial review from the Utah Supreme Court.The Utah Supreme Court held that the property did not qualify for a tax exemption. The court reasoned that while Sports Medicine's discounted testing for charitable organizations could be considered a charitable use, its market-rate testing for professional sports organizations was not. The court emphasized that generating profit, even if used to support a charitable mission, does not constitute a charitable use of property. Additionally, the court found that the vacant portion of the property, intended for future charitable use, did not meet the requirement for current exclusive charitable use. Consequently, the court upheld the Tax Commission's denial of the property tax exemption. View "Sports Medicine Research v. Tax Commission" on Justia Law

Justin Nelson filed a lawsuit against his former mother-in-law, Traci Phillips, former sister-in-law, Ashley Phillips, and other friends and family of his deceased wife, Tiffani Nelson. Justin alleged that Traci, Ashley, and the other defendants conspired to defame him by suggesting he was responsible for Tiffani’s death. None of the defendants reside in Utah, and each moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. They provided sworn statements denying the allegations, while Justin relied solely on his complaint’s allegations without submitting counter-evidence.The Fifth District Court in Washington County, Utah, denied the motions to dismiss. The court concluded that Justin had sufficiently alleged facts that, if proven, would demonstrate a conspiracy to defame him, thus establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendants. For Traci and Ashley, the court found that their personal contacts with Utah were sufficient to assert specific personal jurisdiction.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court dismissed the petitions for interlocutory review filed by Traci and Ashley as improvidently granted, as the lower court had not ruled on the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction for them. The court reversed the lower court’s denial of the motions to dismiss for the other defendants, finding that Justin failed to meet his burden of providing evidence to support his allegations once the defendants had submitted sworn statements contradicting his claims. The court emphasized that without evidence to support the allegations, the district court could not assert jurisdiction based on a conspiracy theory. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Nelson v. Phillips" on Justia Law