Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A long-term employee of a county government began experiencing workplace difficulties after a new supervisor was assigned. The employee alleged that the supervisor engaged in repeated, unwelcome comments about her appearance and closely monitored her, behavior corroborated by coworkers. After reporting the supervisor’s conduct to union representatives, who then informed higher management, the employee was subjected to increased scrutiny, including a performance improvement plan, a written warning, and public criticism of her work. The employee filed internal and external complaints alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. Following these events, her health deteriorated, leading her to take medical leave and ultimately retire early.The Utah Labor Commission’s Antidiscrimination and Labor Division initially found no reasonable cause for her claims. On appeal, an administrative law judge (ALJ) held an evidentiary hearing but was replaced by another ALJ, who dismissed her claims. The Labor Commission Appeals Board reviewed the case, reinstated her retaliation claim using the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, and remanded for a damages determination. The Board and ALJ denied her request for attorney fees, citing a Utah Supreme Court decision, Injured Workers Ass’n of Utah v. State, as precluding such awards. Both parties appealed aspects of the Board’s decision to the Utah Court of Appeals, which adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s Burlington Northern standard for “adverse action” in retaliation claims, upheld the retaliation finding, and ruled that attorney fees could be awarded but not assessed for reasonableness.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the case. It held that the Burlington Northern standard—defining adverse action as conduct likely to dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination charge—applies to retaliation claims under the Utah Antidiscrimination Act. However, the court found the Board had not applied this standard or made sufficient factual findings, so it remanded the case for further proceedings. The court also clarified that the McDonnell Douglas framework is a procedural device, not a set of claim elements, and that the Labor Commission may award and assess the reasonableness of attorney fees. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Christensen v. Labor Commission" on Justia Law

A Colorado-based company applied to the Utah state engineer for permission to divert 55,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Green River in Utah, intending to pipe it across Wyoming for use in Colorado. The company proposed to use the water along Colorado’s Front Range but had not finalized a delivery location or obtained any approvals from Colorado authorities. The application was subject to both the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, which governs interstate water allocations, and Utah’s statutes regulating water appropriation and export.After receiving the application, the Utah state engineer published notice, received protests, and held an administrative hearing. The engineer ultimately denied the application, finding that the company had not demonstrated compliance with Utah’s Export Statute, particularly the requirement to show that the water could be beneficially used in Colorado. The engineer also noted the absence of any guarantee from Colorado that the water would be counted against its compact allocation. The company’s request for reconsideration was denied by default. The company then sought de novo review in the Eighth District Court, Daggett County.The district court granted summary judgment for the state engineer, ruling that the Upper Compact did not preempt Utah’s water laws and that the applicant failed to show beneficial use as required by Utah’s Export Statute. The court also found, in the alternative, that Colorado was a necessary and indispensable party that could not be joined. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Utah’s Export Statute is not preempted by the Upper Compact and that the applicant failed to establish a reason to believe the exported water could be beneficially used in Colorado. View "Water Horse v. Wilhelmsen" on Justia Law

In 1997, an individual applied to the Utah Division of Water Rights to divert water from a surface source in the Weber Basin for irrigation and livestock purposes. The application was met with protests from the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, among others. After a hearing in 1998 and sporadic communications over the next two decades, the Utah State Engineer ultimately denied the application in 2018. The applicant sought judicial review in the Second District Court, arguing that the denial was improper because the water source contained unappropriated water, the application would not interfere with existing rights, and the application’s 1997 filing date should give it priority.While the case was pending in the Second District Court, the applicant died. His counsel moved to substitute the estate’s personal representative as the plaintiff under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1). The district court denied the motion, holding that the claim did not survive the applicant’s death because he had no perfected property right and any inchoate right was not mentioned in his will. The court also found that Utah’s general survival statute did not apply, and dismissed the case. The estate appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed whether the district court erred in denying substitution and dismissing the claim. The court held that the burden was on the movant to show the claim survived death. It found that neither common law nor statute provided for the survival of a claim for judicial review of an administrative denial of a water appropriation application. The court concluded that the claim abated upon the applicant’s death and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Marriott v. Wilhelmsen" on Justia Law

After experiencing shortness of breath and chest pain, Jorge Armenta lost consciousness and his wife called 911. Emergency medical technicians from Unified Fire Authority (UFA) responded, evaluated Armenta, and told him that everything appeared normal, suggesting he had an anxiety attack and did not need to go to the emergency room. A week later, Armenta was hospitalized for a massive heart attack, which resulted in significant and potentially life-shortening heart damage. Armenta filed a negligence suit against UFA, alleging that their failure to properly diagnose and treat him caused his injuries.The Third District Court, Salt Lake County, reviewed UFA’s motion to dismiss, which argued that the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (UGIA) shielded UFA from liability. The district court applied a three-part test, found that UFA’s actions were a governmental function, that immunity was generally waived for such activities, but that an exception for “providing emergency medical assistance” restored immunity. The court dismissed Armenta’s claims against UFA and entered judgment under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the district court’s statutory interpretation and dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in its interpretation of the “providing emergency medical assistance” exception under the UGIA. The Court determined that, when read in context with related statutory provisions, the exception applies only to medical assistance provided in response to certain types of emergencies, such as disasters or catastrophic events, not to routine emergency medical responses like the one at issue. Therefore, the UGIA does not immunize UFA from Armenta’s suit. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "ARMENTA v. UNIFIED FIRE AUTHORITY" on Justia Law

A group of residents and business owners in Salt Lake City filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging that the city's failure to eliminate encampments of unsheltered people on public land interfered with their use and enjoyment of their properties. The residents claimed that the city, as a landowner, had a duty to maintain its properties free of nuisance. The city argued that the residents were attempting to use the court to force the city to exercise its enforcement powers in a specific way, and that under the public duty doctrine, the city had no duty to the residents regarding its failure to use those powers.The Third District Court in Salt Lake County dismissed the residents' complaint with prejudice, ruling that the public duty doctrine precluded their claims. The court found that the residents failed to allege that the city breached a duty owed specifically to them, rather than a duty owed to the public at large. The court concluded that the city owed no duty to the residents individually apart from its general duty to enforce laws and protect the public.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the public duty doctrine, which protects government actors from civil liability for failing to perform duties owed to the public, precluded the residents' claims of public and private nuisance. The court found that no special relationship existed between the residents and the city that would exempt the residents' claims from the public duty doctrine's preclusion. The court emphasized that the public duty doctrine applies to omissions by government actors performing public duties and that the residents did not demonstrate any unique duty owed to them by the city. View "Barrani v. Salt Lake City" on Justia Law

Karen Jean Anderson, a licensed advanced practice registered nurse (APRN), was accused by the Utah Division of Professional Licensing (DOPL) of unlawfully practicing medicine and exceeding her APRN license by performing tumescent liposuction and fat grafting procedures. These procedures are classified as ablative cosmetic medical procedures under Utah law. DOPL barred Anderson from performing these procedures and imposed a fine. Anderson sought agency review with the Department of Commerce, which reduced the fine but upheld DOPL’s order. Anderson then sought judicial review.The Utah Board of Nursing initially found that Anderson did not unlawfully practice medicine or exceed her APRN license, reasoning that the Nurse Practice Act (NPA) allows APRNs broad authority, including the ability to perform procedures like tumescent liposuction and fat grafting. However, DOPL rejected this recommendation, stating that the legislature had granted exclusive authority to perform non-exempt ablative cosmetic medical procedures to medical and osteopathic doctors. The Department of Commerce affirmed DOPL’s decision, leading Anderson to file a petition for judicial review with the Utah Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Utah Supreme Court.The Utah Supreme Court held that the Utah Code bars APRNs from independently performing ablative cosmetic medical procedures. The court found that the statutory scheme limits such procedures to those licensed to practice medicine or those whose scope of practice includes the authority to operate or perform surgery. Since the scope of practice for APRNs does not include such authorization, Anderson unlawfully practiced medicine and exceeded her APRN license. The court affirmed the Department’s order, maintaining the restrictions and fine imposed on Anderson. View "Anderson v. Department of Commerce" on Justia Law

A four-year-old child suffered severe brain damage due to a massive air embolism during surgery in July 2018. The child's parents, John and Amelia Tullis, sued the healthcare providers, including the University of Utah, in 2019, alleging negligence and seeking damages for pain, anguish, and future medical expenses estimated to exceed $22 million.The University of Utah sought to limit the potential recovery by invoking the 2017 Governmental Immunity Act of Utah (GIA), which capped damages at $745,200. The Third District Court of Salt Lake County denied the University's motion for partial summary judgment, reasoning that the decision in Condemarin v. University Hospital, which found a different damages cap unconstitutional as applied to University Hospital, necessarily determined that the 2017 GIA’s damages cap was also unconstitutional as applied to the University.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether Condemarin controlled the current issue. The court concluded that Condemarin, a plurality decision with a narrow holding, did not control the case. The court noted that Condemarin’s holding was limited to the specific statutes at issue in that case, which imposed a $100,000 cap, whereas the 2017 GIA set a higher limit and included a mechanism for adjusting for inflation. The court emphasized that Condemarin’s holding did not automatically apply to the revised statute with different terms.The Utah Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, noting that the district court should consider the Tullises' request for discovery on the applicability of the damages cap. View "University of Utah Hospital v. Tullis" on Justia Law

Quintin Grillone resigned from his position as a police officer in 2014 while under investigation for providing false information to a prosecutor regarding a traffic citation against his mother. The Peace Officer Standards and Training Division (POST) did not learn of the incident until 2019 when Grillone disclosed it in his application to join a new police department. Following an investigation, POST initiated disciplinary proceedings, and an administrative law judge found that Grillone's conduct constituted obstruction of justice. The POST Council then retroactively suspended Grillone’s certification for three years.Grillone sought judicial review by the Utah Court of Appeals, arguing that the disciplinary proceedings were time-barred by the four-year catch-all statute of limitations for civil actions under Utah Code § 78B-2-307(4). He contended that the statute governing POST disciplinary proceedings referred to them as “civil actions,” thus subjecting them to the civil statute of limitations. The court of appeals, however, held that civil statutes of limitation do not apply to administrative disciplinary proceedings absent specific legislative authority and found that the POST statute did not incorporate the civil statute of limitations.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the court of appeals' decision. The Supreme Court agreed that civil statutes of limitation are generally inapplicable to administrative disciplinary proceedings unless the legislature indicates otherwise. The Court concluded that the POST statute’s reference to “civil actions” was intended to distinguish POST proceedings from criminal actions, not to incorporate the civil statutes of limitation. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings against Grillone were not time-barred, and the POST Council’s three-year suspension of his certification was upheld. View "Grillone v. Peace Officer Standards" on Justia Law

Randi Mariani crashed her motor scooter and sustained a serious injury during a driving skills test, which she was taking to obtain a motorcycle endorsement to her driver license. Following the crash, the Utah Department of Public Safety-Driver License Division (DLD) denied Mariani’s application for the endorsement. Mariani sued the DLD for negligently causing her injury. The district court granted summary judgment to the DLD based on governmental immunity, and the court of appeals affirmed.The district court concluded that the DLD was immune from Mariani’s suit under the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah (GIA), reasoning that Mariani’s injury arose out of the administration of her motorcycle skills test, which was part of the licensing process. The court of appeals agreed, stating that Mariani’s injury was at least incident to the licensing approval process.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court focused on the specific language of the GIA’s licensing exception, which provides immunity for injuries that arise out of or in connection with the denial of a license. The Court concluded that the relevant conduct was the denial of the motorcycle endorsement, not the licensing process itself. The Court further determined that there was no causal relationship between the denial of the license and Mariani’s injury, as the injury occurred before the denial. Therefore, the licensing exception did not apply, and the DLD was not immune from Mariani’s suit. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Mariani v. Driver License Division" 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