Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Here the Supreme Court answered a question of Utah law certified to it by the U.S. district court. The question was, "Is a signed agreement to donate preserved sperm to the donor's wife in the event of his death sufficient to constitute 'consent in a record' to being the 'parent' of a child conceived by artificial means after the donor's death under Utah intestacy law?" In this case, after she gave birth, the wife of the donor applied for social security benefits based on the donor's earnings. The Social Security Administration denied the benefits, finding that the wife had not shown the child was the donor's "child" as defined by the Social Security Act. The wife subsequently filed a petition for adjudication of paternity, and the district court adjudicated the donor to be the father of the child. On appeal, the U.S. district court certified the state law question to the Supreme Court. The Court held that an agreement leaving preserved frozen semen to the deceased donor's wife does not, without more, confer on the donor the status of a parent for purposes of social security benefits. View "Burns v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Defendant entered into a plea agreement in 2005 in which the State promised to not oppose a motion to reduce his convictions. Defendant later filed a motion to reduce his convictions after successfully completing his probation, as required by statute. During his probation, however, the statute governing reduction of convictions was amended to bar reduction for crimes like Defendant's that triggered the sex offender registration requirement. The district court applied the amended statute retroactively to deny Defendant's motion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of Defendant's motion under the version of the statute in effect when he was initially sentenced, holding that the district court erred in applying the amended statute to Defendant's motion to reduce his convictions. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendants for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Defendants mailed Plaintiff a letter asking for her authorization to permit the release of her medical and employment records for the last twenty years. Plaintiff declined. The district court granted a motion to compel Plaintiff to sign the authorizations. On an interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court's order granting the motion to compel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals did not misstate or misconstrue the factual background in evaluating the issues on appeal; (2) because Defendants did not comply with the procedural requirements of Utah R. Civ. P. 34 in serving the letters, the district court abused its discretion by compelling Plaintiff to sign the authorizations under Utah R. Civ. P. 37; and (3) the court of appeals did not err when it suggested that Defendants may use the subpoena process to obtain records from out-of-state third parties. Remanded. View "Rahofy v. Steadman Land & Livestock, LLC" on Justia Law

In 1985, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. In 2006, Appellant filed a successive postconviction petition for relief. In 2009, the district court dismissed Appellant's petition, holding (1) all claims were procedurally barred except the claim of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel in the first Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) proceedings; and (2) Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not timely brought. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's request for a six-month stay of proceedings; (2) the district court was correct in determining that all of Appellant's claims were procedurally barred except the claim of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel; and (3) because Appellant did not make a showing of ineffective assistance, the Court did not need to consider whether the claim was time barred or whether Appellant had either a statutory or constitutional right to effective assistance of postconviction counsel. View "Carter v. State" on Justia Law

In this case the Supreme Court was asked to answer a certified question about whether the Court's discretionary review of a petition for extraordinary writ and subsequent dismissal on laches grounds is a decision on the merits when it is accompanied by a written opinion, such that later adjudication of the same claim is barred. The question stemmed from litigation surrounding a probate court's reformation and administration of a charitable religious trust. An association of members of the church and beneficiaries of the trust (the FLDSA) filed a complaint in federal court. Later, the FLDSA filed an extraordinary writ petition in state court asserting claims substantially similar to those in the federal case. The federal court stayed its proceedings. The Utah Supreme Court held that the FLDSA's claims were barred on laches grounds and dismissed the petition. When the federal case reached the court of appeals, the court certified to the Supreme Court its question about Utah preclusion law. The Court answered the certified question in the affirmative, holding that a decision like the one reached in state court was a decision "on the merits" for res judicata purposes and would preclude a subsequent action on the same claims between the same parties. View "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Horne" on Justia Law

Appellant brought suit against his former employer, EnvironMax, and its directors to recover the value of shares he received to offset wages owed to him by the company - shares he claimed were diluted by corporate misdeeds. The district court dismissed Appellant's suit on summary judgment, concluding that the claim was derivative in nature and that Appellant lacked standing to assert it directly. In so ruling, the court concluded that EnvironMax was not a closely held corporation subject to an exception to the general rule requiring shareholder suits to be filed derivatively and that Appellant's direct claims were otherwise foreclosed by his failure to utilize the Utah dissenters' rights statute. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because Appellant's alleged injury was an individual and not a collective one in common with all shareholders, Appellant was entitled to sue individually and not required to pursue his claim derivatively; and (2) the dissenters' rights statute does not preempt direct actions rooted in breach of fiduciary duty, such as the one brought by Appellant. View "Torian v. Craig" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, a first-degree felony, and dealing in material harmful to a minor, a second-degree felony. Defendant appealed his convictions to the court of appeals, asserting he should be granted a new trial because his trial counsel was ineffective. Specifically, Defendant contended that trial counsel did not properly investigate or exploit discrepancies in the victim's statements about whether the abuse occurred in 2002 or 2003. The court of appeals agreed and granted a new trial on both charges. The State conceded that Defendant's counsel acted ineffectively in defending the sexual abuse conviction, but petitioned for writ of certiorari on the harmful materials conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' conclusion that Defendant was entitled to a new trial on the harmful materials conviction, holding that trial counsel's failure to press the time discrepancy was prejudicial. Remanded. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Judicial Conduct Commission recommended a reprimand against the Honorable Keith L. Stoney due to the issuance of an excessive warrant. Judge Stoney argued before the Supreme Court that the excessive amount of the warrant was a mistake not amounting to misconduct. The court agreed and declined to discipline Judge Stoney, holding (1) the record evidence did not support the Commission's conclusion that Judge Stoney issued a warrant with improper intent; (2) Judge Stoney's mistake did not violate the Code of Judicial Conduct; and (3) because parties to a judicial discipline proceeding are not required to marshal evidence, the Court did not need to dismiss Judge Stoney's brief for failure to marshal the evidence supporting the Commission's order. View "In re J. Stoney" on Justia Law