Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the determination of the Utah State Tax Commission that the Property Tax Division correctly followed the requirements of the Aircraft Valuation Law, Utah Code 59-2-201 subsection 4, in determining the 2017 value of Delta Air Lines' aircraft, holding that Salt Lake County failed to demonstrate that the Law, as applied to Delta's 2017 assessment, violated the fair market value provision of the Utah Constitution.For tax year 2017, the Division valued Delta's aircraft according to section 59-2-201's preferred methodology. The County appealed, arguing that the valuation did not reflect the fair market value of Delta's aircraft, in violation of the Utah Constitution. The Commission upheld the assessment, concluding that the County did not establish that the Legislature's preferred method of valuation did not reasonably reflect fair market value. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Aircraft Valuation Law was not unconstitutional as applied by the Commission to assess the value of Delta's aircraft for tax year 2017. View "Salt Lake County v. Utah State Tax Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion filed under Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), which allows a court to grant relief from a judgment under certain circumstances, holding that Defendant's challenge to his conviction could have been brought in a petition for post-conviction relief.Defendant pled guilty to two counts of attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Defendant did not file a direct appeal and did not challenge his conviction under Utah's Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA) but later filed a motion under Rule 60(b)(6) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion, ruling that Rule 60(b)(6) was not the appropriate vehicle for Defendant to bring his claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the PCRA applied to Defendant's request to set aside his conviction based on his trial counsel's alleged conflict of interest. View "State v. Ogden" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of two counts of rape, one count of aggravated assault, and two counts of domestic violence in the presence of a child, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his multiple claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in not withholding from jury deliberations a video exhibit of Defendant's police interview; (2) Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by the alleged deficient performance of his trial counsel; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motions for a mistrial and a new trial arising out of a child witness's breakdown on the witness stand. View "State v. Centeno" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Robyn Young's motion to dismiss this action brought by Granite School District regarding settlement proceeds Young had received for industrial injuries, holding that the Labor Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over the factual questions at the heart of this reimbursement dispute.Young, a special education teacher, sought workers' compensation for injuries she received at the hands of her students. An administrative law judge awarded Young benefits, finding that Young was permanently and totally disabled and that Young did not have to reimburse Granite with funds she received from a legal settlement she had obtained against medical debt collectors for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Granite then initiated suit for reimbursement from Young under the Utah Workers' Compensation Act. The district court granted Young's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it dismissed Granite's complaint because the Workers' Compensation Act assigned the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute. View "Granite School District v. Young" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court rejecting the State's interpretation of Utah Const. art. I, section 8(1) to mandate that a judge deny bail to a defendant charged with a felony if that defendant is already serving probation on a felony conviction, holding that there was no error.Defendant was serving probation when he was charged with felony crimes in both Salt Lake and Davis counties. At the Davis County bail hearing the State argued that Utah Const. art. I, section 8(1) mandates that a judge deny bail to a defendant charged with a felony if that defendant is already serving probation on a felony conviction. The district court disagreed with the State's interpretation and set bail. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that it could grant Defendant bail. View "State v. Barnett" on Justia Law

In this appeal from the denial of a post-conviction determination of factual innocence pursuant to the Post-Conviction Remedies Act the Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court, holding that further proceedings were required in accordance with the legal standards set forth in this opinion.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child for allegedly abusing her son, Kevin. Approximately one decade later Defendant recanted his statements. Based on the recantation, Defendant filed his petition for a post-conviction determination of factual innocence. The district court denied the petition after holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding (1) Kevin's recantation, if believable, was sufficient to prove Defendant's factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence; (2) the district court erred in denying the petition without weighing all of the relevant evidence, assessing credibility, or making an ultimate finding on the recantation's veracity; and (3) to the extent the district court made an implicit credibility determination, it was based on a clearly erroneous factual finding that certain facts were disputed. View "Ashby v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of aggravated arson, holding that the court of appeals did not err in concluding that Defendant's counsel did not render ineffective assistance.On appeal, Defendant argued that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move for a directed verdict and by failing to object to the testimony of an expert who opined that the structure Defendant had set fire to was habitable. A divided court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) reasonable counsel could have decided to forgot a motion for directed verdict; and (2) the court of appeals correctly concluded that Defendant was not deprived of the Sixth Amendment guarantees. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court partially granting summary judgment concluding that a homeowners association (HOA) was entitled to collect past due assessments against Robbie Frank, the trustee of two trusts that each owned a lot within the HOA's boundaries, but that a bench trial was necessary to determine the amount owing, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal, Frank argued (1) the documents establishing the HOA were void as against public policy and that void documents cannot be ratified, and (2) in the alternative, the district court erred in determining that ratification had occurred in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the governing documents were merely voidable, not absolutely void; and (2) the district court did not err in determining that the HOA had authority to assess the properties because the HOA members collectively ratified the HOA's authority. View "Hi-Country Estates Homeowners Ass'n, Phase II v. Frank" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs' respondeat superior-related claims, holding that the district court correctly held that respondeat superior principles did not make the remaining defendants in this case vicariously responsible for the abuse committed by a physician assistant and that the Utah Physician Assistant Act did not change that conclusion.Plaintiff brought an action against Alta Pain Physicians; Oscar Johnson, a physician assistant; and Dr. Michael Chen, Johnson's supervising physician, alleging that Johnson subjected her to sexual harassment and abuse when she saw him for pain treatment at Alta Pain. After Plaintiff settled her claims against Johnson the district court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Chen and Alta Pain on Plaintiff's claims of sexual assault, sexual battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in entering summary judgment on Plaintiff's respondeat superior-based claims; and (2) Plaintiff did not met her burden of convincing the Court to overturn precedent and use a foreseeability test for plaintiffs to recover against employers of abusive employees. View "Burton v. Chen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this interlocutory appeal of the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress calls made by Defendant on the Salt Lake County Jail's telephones and recorded by the jail, holding that Defendant impliedly consented to the conditions the jail had placed on the use of its phones.Defendant was charged with kidnapping and assaulting his wife and made hundreds of calls to his wife from the jail. The State moved to admit recording of several of those phone calls and filed new charges based on the recordings. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the recordings in both cases. The Supreme Court denied the motions, concluding that Defendant impliedly consented to the interception of the phone calls and that the calls were exempt under the law enforcement exception to Utah's Interception of Communications Act, Utah Code 77-23a-1 to -16. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant impliedly consented to the jail's recording of his phone calls, and therefore, the interception of Defendant's calls was authorized under the Interception Act's consent exception. View "State v. Wood" on Justia Law