Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendants provided services for individuals with mental and physical disabilities. Some of homes run by Defendants and occupied by disabled individuals were in residential neighborhoods. A.R., a minor child, was sexually abused by one of Defendants’ employees at one of those homes. Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants, alleging negligence in the hiring, training, and supervision of Defendants’ employees. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err in holding that Defendants owed a duty to A.R. to exercise reasonable care in the hiring, training, and supervision of their employees; (2) did not err in determining that Plaintiffs had no obligation to designate an expert witness to establish a standard of care; and (3) erred in concluding that Defendants were not entitled to apportion liability to their employee under the comparative fault provisions of Utah Code 78B-5-818, as the fault to be apportioned under the statute is not limited to negligence but extends to intentional torts. View "Graves v. North Eastern Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

2 Ton Plumbing, LLC recorded a notice of mechanics’ lien against a lot in a development (Lot 30). Gregory and Kendra Thorgaard later purchased Lot 30 and executed a trust deed in favor of Washington Federal. Thereafter, 2 Ton recorded amended notices of mechanics’ lien against Lot 30 and filed a lien foreclosure claim against the Thorgaards and Washington Federal. Washington Federal, meanwhile, recorded its notice of release of lien and substitution of alternate security purporting to release 2 Ton’s original notice of lien. The district court ultimately entered judgment against Lot 30, which included principal and fees and costs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) 2 Ton’s amended notices of lien were invalid because they included attorney fees and costs in the value of the mechanics’ lien, but 2 Ton’s original notice of lien remained valid; (2) the Thorgaards’ notice of release of lien and substitution of alternate security complied with the statutory requirements, and therefore, the district court erred in refusing to release Lot 30 from the lien; but (3) because the Thorgaards stipulated to the accuracy of the original lien claim, 2 Ton was entitled to recover its costs and a reasonable attorney fees award. Remanded. View "2 Ton Plumbing, LLC v. Thorgaard" on Justia Law

After a night of heavy drinking at a party hosted by Travis Izatt, Neely Creager picked up Izatt’s loaded handgun and accidentally shot herself in the head. The shot killed her. Creager’s estate filed this negligence action against Izatt, alleging general negligence, negligent entrustment, and premises liability. The district court granted summary judgment for Izatt, reasoning that he owed no duty to Creager. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that gun owners have a duty in tort to exercise reasonable care in supplying their guns to intoxicated individuals, but the gun owners will not necessarily be liable for damages when those individuals injure themselves because the intoxicated individual’s negligence will likely exceed that of the gun owner as a matter of comparative negligence. View "Herland v. Izatt" on Justia Law

Vickie Warrant filed a personal injury suit against Defendants seeking damages due to her exposure to asbestos, which she claimed caused her mesothelioma. After receiving a jury verdict in her favor in the personal injury lawsuit, Warren died. Thereafter, Micah Riggs, the personal representative of Warren’s estate, filed a wrongful death and survival suit on behalf of Warren’s children that arose out of the same injury and was against the same defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss the wrongful death claim, asserting that Warren’s personal injury trial and judgment precluded the wrongful death motion. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a prior personal injury suit does not bar a related wrongful death claim brought by the decedent’s heirs or personal representative. View "Riggs v. Georgia-Pacific LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder, aggravated robbery, and unlawful distribution of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted Y-STR DNA evidence linking Defendant to the murder weapon; (2) the trial court did not err when it refused to admit the entire transcript or video of Defendant’s second police interview after a State witness testified to portions of the interview at trial; (3) defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance in his cross-examination of one of the detectives who conducted the second interview; (4) the trial court did not err when it admitted an officer’s testimony about the frequency of drug-related crimes; (5) the State did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; (6) the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for murder and aggravated robbery; and (7) Defendant failed to demonstrate cumulative error that undermined confidence in the verdict. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The jury returned a sentence of life without parole. Defendant appealed and also filed motions to remand under Utah R. App. P. 23 and 23B. The Supreme Court (1) denied Defendant’s motion to supplement the record under Rule 23 as an improper means to supplement the record for appeal; and (2) granted Defendant’s Rule 23 B motion on several of his claims and remanded this case to the trial court on those claims, holding that remand was necessary to supplement the record regarding Defendant’s claims of conflict of interest, failure to investigate a witness, and failure to introduce evidence of a burglary of the victim’s home. View "State v. Griffin" on Justia Law

This debt collection action arose from a credit agreement between U.S. Bank and Charles Migliore. Livingston Financial, LLC, as assignee for U.S. Bank, brought suit against Migliore for breach of the credit agreement. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Livingston. Approximately two years after the district court denied Migliore’s motion to reconsider summary judgment pursuant to Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b), Migliore filed a renewed Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment. The district court denied the renewed motion and granted Livingston’s motion for attorney fees. Migliore appealed the original grant of summary judgment, the denial of the renewed Rule 60(b) motion, and the order granting attorney fees. The court of appeals (1) dismissed the appeal of the original summary judgment order and the order denying the renewed rule 60(b) motion on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction; and (2) affirmed Livingston’s award of fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of apepals (1) erred when it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of Migliore’s renewed Rule 60(b) motion, but the renewed motion was improper and without merit; and (2) correctly affirmed the award of attorney fees. View "Migliore v. Livingston Fin. LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant filed an action against a Bank seeking to foreclose his judgment lien against property owned by the Bank. Wells Fargo subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Appellant’s complaint because the judgment lien had expired while the foreclosure action was pending. The district court granted the Bank’s motion and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, Appellant argued that the Court should overturn its precedent holding that a foreclosure action does not toll the expiration of a judgment or hold that the Bank should be estopped from asserting the expiration of the judgment because the Bank unfairly extended the foreclosure litigation past the judgment’s expiration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) filing a foreclosure action does not toll the expiration of a judgment; and (2) principles of equity do not support tolling the expiration of Appellant’s judgment. View "Gildea v. Wells Fargo Bank" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder with an enhancement for criminal street gang activity, obstruction of justice, and possession or use of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) correctly denied Defendant’s motion for directed verdict on the murder and obstruction-of-justice charges; (2) did not abuse its discretion by permitting the State to present gang-related evidence during the guilt phase of the trial; and (3) did not abuse its discretion by dismissing as untimely Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the gang-enhancement statute. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

On May 8, 2012, legislative amendments to the Indigent Defense Act (IDA) became effective. The amendments override the Supreme Court’s construction of the prior version of the IDA by precluding an indigent defendant in a criminal action from retaining private counsel while requesting public defense resources from the government. In two criminal cases against Defendant, Defendant, who was represented by private counsel, filed requests for government-funded defense resources. Defendant’s motions for government-funded defense resources were filed on May 8, 2012 and November 29, 2012. The district court judges denied Defendant’s requests. The Supreme court affirmed, holding (1) the conduct being regulated by the IDA is the exercise of a mature right to indigent defense resources, and the law in effect at the time that Defendant exercised that mature right was the amended version of the IDA; and (2) Defendant’s constitutional and statutory challenges to the application of the IDA amendments to her case were without merit. View "State v. Earl" on Justia Law