Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case required the Supreme Court to determine when a well "started" under Utah Code 59-5-102. Although that statute imposes a severance tax on oil or gas produced from a well, section 59-5-102(5)(c) permits an exemption for "the first six months of production for development wells started after January 1, 1990." Summit Operating, LLC argued that a well starts when it begins commercial production. Under this interpretation, Summit asserted that it was entitled to a six-month tax exemption for its well, which started commercial production in 2008. The Utah State Tax Commission asserted that a well starts on the date that drilling begins, and thus, Summit was not entitled to the tax exemption because drilling for Summit's well began in 1983. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's order granting summary judgment to the Auditing Division of the Commission, holding that under the Tax Exemption Statute, a well "starts" when drilling begins. View "Summit Operating v. State Tax Comm'n" on Justia Law

This appeal resulted from an action in eminent domain in which the Utah Department of Transportation sought to condemn an access point easement on property owned by FPA West Point. FPA's codefendant and lessee, Kmart Corporation, also claimed an interest in the access. Because of the different interests claimed by FPA and Kmart, FPA filed a motion asking the court to order separate just compensation determinations. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court was correct in determining that the values of respective interests in a parcel of condemned property must be individually assessed; (2) the value of respective interests may be individually assessed in either separate or consolidated proceedings; (3) accordingly, the district court has discretion to order separate proceedings in an action involving multiple interest holders in a condemned parcel of property; and (4) because it was unclear whether the district court intended that FPA's and Kmart's interests be assessed through separate or through consolidated proceedings, the case was remanded with instructions to determine whether to order separate or consolidated proceedings in this matter. View "Utah Dep't of Transp. v. FPA West Point, LLC" on Justia Law

Sunnyside Coal Company (Sunnyside), the Employers' Reinsurance Fund (ERF), and the Workers' Compensation Fund (WCF) (collectively, Petitioners) challenged the Labor Commission's award of permanent total disability benefits to Claimant. Petitioners argued that the award was barred under the relevant statute of limitation, which prevented the labor commission from acquiring jurisdiction and making the award. The Supreme Court affirmed the commission's award of permanent total disability benefits but remanded for a determination of the correct amount of compensation, holding (1) the commission correctly determined it had original jurisdiction over the claim and also correctly exercised its continuing jurisdiction in awarding compensation; (2) because of the long delay in bringing the claim, however, Claimant's recovery was equitably limited; and (3) ERF was obligated to pay only prospective benefits from the date of filing, and Sunnyside and WCF were not liable for any permanent total disability benefits. View "Employers' Reinsurance Fund v. Henningson" on Justia Law

The Board of Oil, Gas and Mining (Board) affirmed the approval by the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (Division) of Alton Coal Development's (ACD) mining permit, which allowed ACD to conduct surface coal mining operations at the Coal Hollow Mine. Petitioners appealed, arguing that the Board erred in affirming ACD's permit because the permit application was deficient in several respects. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board's decision, holding (1) the Board properly concluded that the Division gave adequate consideration to cultural and historic resources in the adjacent area; (2) the Board properly concluded that the Division's cumulative hydrological Impact Assessment satisfied Utah's requirements; (3) the Board properly concluded that the hydrologic monitoring plan was adequate; and (4) therefore, the Board acted within its discretion in affirming the Division's conclusions that ACD's mining permit application satisfied all of the statutory and regulatory requirements. View "Sierra Club v. Bd. of Oil, Gas, & Mining" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned a challenge by a group of citizens (Citizens) to an ordinance passed by the Ground County Council (Council) approving amendments concerning a Planned Unit Development district. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Council and the developer. In the district court, Citizens claimed the Council had acted administratively in adopting the ordinance, and accordingly, the matter should be remanded to the county board of adjustments because Citizens weren't allowed to challenge an administrative decision in a district court until they had exhausted their administrative remedies. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Council acted in its legislative capacity in adopting the ordinance because the ordinance created a new law of general applicability passed after the Council weighed policy considerations and because it had the formal nature of a legislative act; and (2) the ordinance should not be set aside because of illegality because, for each of Citizens' claims, the Council complied with applicable zoning ordinances. View "Suarez v. Grand County" on Justia Law

One of Summit Water Distribution Company's (SWDC) minority shareholders, Bear Hollow Restoration, filed a complaint requesting a review and investigation of SWDC's exemption from public regulation under the now-repealed Utah Admin. R. 746-331-1. The Public Service Commission dismissed the complaint on the basis that SWDC was not a public utility, and therefore, the Commission did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's dismissal, holding (1) the allegations in Bear Hollow's complaint were insufficient to establish that SWDC served the public generally or that the Commission had jurisdiction; (2) Bear Hollow was not prejudiced by repeal of Rule 746-331-1 because the rule applied only to internal agency decisions and the underlying substantive law remained in place; and (3) the Commission did not abuse its discretion when it refused Bear Hollow's amended complaint after the original complaint had been dismissed. View "Bear Hollow Restoration, LLC v. Utah Pub. Serv. Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Point of the Mountain Aqueduct is a sixty-inch diameter pipeline that runs along the Draper Canal and transports culinary water to Salt Lake City and other cities in the Salt Lake Valley. Plaintiffs in this case were homeowners who asserted claims challenging Metropolitan Water District's construction of the aqueduct as exceeding the scope of its real property rights along the canal route. The district court granted summary judgment for the Water District. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision in most respects, but reversed the district court's conclusion that (1) Reaches 16-17 were not limited by restrictive covenants; and (2) enclosing the Draper Canal within a buried pipeline was reasonable as a matter of law and so did not exceed the scope of the Water District's property rights in Reach 19. The Court then (1) held that warranty deeds imposed restrictive covenants that run with the land, limiting Reaches 16-17 to canal purposes only; and (2) remanded for a factual determination of whether the canal enclosure was reasonable and did not materially alter the burden to Appellants' land with respect to Reaches 16, 17, and 19. View "Stern v. Metro. Water Dist." on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was the Privilege Tax Statute, which provides that an entity may be taxed on the privilege of beneficially using or possessing property in connection with a for-profit business when the owner of that property is exempt from taxation. But the tax may not be imposed unless the entity using or possessing the exempt property has "exclusive possession" of that property. Alliant Techsystems (ATK) challenged the imposition of a privilege tax on its use of government property. The district court granted summary judgment against ATK, concluding that ATK had "exclusive possession" of federal government property because there was no evidence that anyone other than the government, the landowner, had any possession, use, management or control of the property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under the Statute, "exclusive possession" means exclusive as to all parties, including the property owner, and thus, exclusive possession exists when an entity has the present right to occupy and control property akin to that of an owner or lessee; and (2) because the record indicated disputed material facts regarding ATK's authority to control the government property, summary judgment was inappropriate in this case. View "Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. Salt Lake Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

Petitioners in this case were Lehi City voters who sought to place on the municipal ballot initiatives regulating salaries and residency requirements for certain city employees. The City refused to accept the initiatives. Three of the initiatives' sponsors subsequently filed a petition for writ of extraordinary relief, contending that the initiatives were proper exercises of initiative power under Utah Const. art. VI. At issue before the Supreme Court was the scope of the people's initiative power under article VI. The Court upheld the initiatives after repudiating the framework set forth in Citizen's Awareness Now v. Marakis, holding (1) a ballot initiative should be deemed an appropriate legislative, and thus referable, act where it proposes a law of general applicability; (2) the subject matter of the initiatives in this case was legislative in nature; and (3) the initiatives did not conflict with state law because Utah Code 10-3-818, invoked by the City, did not apply to voter initiatives. View "Carter v. Lehi City" on Justia Law

Marilyn Hamblin, the owner of a water right as an alleged tenant in common, filed a permanent change application with the state engineer, seeking to change her water right's place of use and point of diversion. The engineer rejected Hamblin's application because Hamblin had established no beneficial use under the water right since at least 1980. The district court granted the engineer's motion for summary judgment, basing its decision primarily on the determination that Hamblin's water right had been forfeited by operation of law through nonuse. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the state engineer lacked the authority to adjudicate water rights, and therefore, could not consider non-adjudicated forfeiture when reviewing a change application; and (2) instead, the engineer was limited to considering factors presented in Utah Code Ann. 73-3-8(1) when deciding whether to approve or deny a change application, but could stay change application proceedings while pursuing an adjudication of forfeiture. View "Jensen v. Jones" on Justia Law