Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Public Service Commission (PSC) denying in part and granting in part motions for reconsideration of an order it issued setting forth the inputs it would use to calculate the export credit rate (ECR), holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction as to certain issues and, as to the two remaining issues, the PSC did not exceed the bounds of its authority.The export credit rate system at issue in this case was created to eventually replace the "net metering" program for customers who generated electricity. The PSC engaged in a lengthy public process to decide what factors to consider in calculating the ECR. After the PSC issued an order setting forth the inputs to use for the ECR Appellants filed motions for reconsideration. The PSC granted in part the motions, agreeing to reconsider some of the ECR calculation's components. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as to issues for which the Court lacked jurisdiction and otherwise denied the motion, holding that the PSC did not exceed the bounds of its authority. View "Vote Solar v. Public Service Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals dismissing as untimely Mother's appeal from the juvenile court's termination of the parental rights of Mother and Father, holding that Mother's time to file a notice of appeal was extended in this case.After a hearing, the juvenile court terminated entered an order terminating Father's and Mother's parental rights to their two children. Father timely filed his notice of appeal, but the court of appeals determined that Mother's appeal was not filed within fifteen days of the termination order, as required by Utah R. App. P. 52(a). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that Utah R. App. P. 52(c), together with Father's appeal, extended Mother's time to file a notice of appeal. View "In re C.D.S." on Justia Law

In this ongoing sexual abuse of a child case the Supreme Court denied Defendant's motion filed under rule 4-202.04 of the Utah Code of Judicial Administration seeking access to F.L.'s therapy records that the trial court sealed after its in camera review, holding that the balance of interests weighed in favor of keeping F.L.'s therapy records sealed during appellate review.Defendant was charged with four counts of sexual abuse of a child, F.L. In preparing his defense, Defendant requested that the trial court order in camera review of the records of multiple entities that had provided mental health services to F.L. and that the record contained references "to this incidents alleged to have occurred" in his case. The court authorized in camera review of the records, provided Defendant with relevant portions of the records, and then sealed them. After Defendant was convicted on one count, he appealed. The court of appeals unsealed the therapy records, and Defendant used them to prepare his appellate brief. F.L. requested that the court of appeals re-seal her records, which the court did. The Supreme Court denied Defendant's request to access the records, holding that the interests favoring the records' closure outweighed those favoring Defendant's access. View "State v. Chadwick" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for sexually assaulting six women, holding that the doctrine of chances precedent should be abandoned in favor of a plain-test reading of rules 402, 403 and 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence.On appeal, Defendant argued that under rules 404(b) and 403 and the doctrine of chances, the district court erred in allowing the admission of other acts evidence to show that he sexually assaulted a particular victim. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) in an analysis of whether the district court erred in admitting the other-acts evidence under the rules of evidence, without reference to the doctrine of chances, there was no error in the district court's other-acts evidence determination; (2) most of Defendant's hearsay claims were properly admitted consistent with exemptions to the hearsay rule, and any errors in admitting statements that should have been excluded as hearsay were harmless; and (3) Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were unavailing. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law

In this action brought by Utah Stream Access Coalition (USAC) after USAC members were cited for trespass for wading in the Provo River on property owned by VR Acquisitions the Supreme Court held that the district court correctly entered judgment against USAC.In its complaint, USAC claimed that the Public Waters Access Act (PWAA) violated Utah Const. art. XVII and XX and federal common law. The district court entered summary judgment against USAC on its article XVII and federal common law claims but, after a bench trial, determined that the PWAA violated article XX. On appeal, the Supreme Court determined that the district court made a threshold error in reaching its article XX determination and remanded with instruction that the court address the threshold question of whether the easement identified in Conaster v. Johnson, 194 P.3d 897 (Utah 2008), had a historical basis as a public easement at the time the Utah Constitution was framed. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for VR Acquisitions and the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because USAC did not identify an affirmative, 19th-century legal basis for a Conaster easement, the district court correctly ruled that USAC did not make the threshold showing. View "Utah Stream Access Coalition v. VR Acquisitions, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of a homeowners' association in this dispute against Owner over unpaid assessments concluding that the HOA was entitled to collect the assessments because the HOA members in general had ratified the HOA's authority, holding that protective covenants that were not signed by the property owner are capable of ratification.The HOA in this case sued the Owner of a lot within its boundaries for unpaid assessments. The Owner argued, in response, that the HOA's governing documents were unauthorized encumbrances on the lot and therefore violated the Wrongful Lien Act. The district court granted summary for the HOA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) protective covenants that were not signed by the property owner are voidable but not void as against public policy and are thus capable of ratification; (2) the district court correctly ruled that the HOA at the authority to assess the lot at issue and correctly calculated the unpaid assessments owing to the HOA; and (3) the HOA was entitled to its attorney fees on appeal. View "Hi-Country Estates v. MountainTop Properties" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Utah State Tax Commission agreeing with the determination of Washington County that rental property owned by Durbano Properties, LC in the County did not qualify for a property tax exemption, holding that Durbano was not entitled to relief on its claims of error.For the 2010 through 2017 tax years Durbano received a residential tax exemption as provided by the Property Tax Act, Utah Code 59-2-103(3), under which property owners are allowed an exemption equal to forty-five percent of the fair market value of "property used for residential purposes as a primary residence," Utah Code 59-2-102(34)(a). Durbano brought a petition arguing that limiting the residential exemption to property used as a primary residence violated the permissive authority granted to the legislature. The Supreme Court disagreed and declined to disturb the Commission's decision, holding that Durbano provided no legal basis to invalidate the legislature's definition of "residential property" as authorized by Utah Const. art. XIII, 3. View "Durbano Properties, LC v. Utah Tax Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of a homeowners association (HOA) in this lawsuit it brought to collect unpaid assessments against against the trustee (Trustee) of two trusts that each owned a lot (Lots) within the HOA's boundaries, holding that there was no error.Since at least 1979, prior owners of the Lots paid the HOA's annual assessments, but when Trustee purchased the Lots on behalf of the trust in 2009 he refused to pay the assessments. When the HOA brought this action Trustee argued that the HOA lacked authority to assess the Lots, which rendered the HOA's founding documents void and the HOA powerless. The district court concluded that the HOA was entitled to collect the past due assessments but that a bench trial was necessary to determine the amount owing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that the members of the HOA collectively ratified the HOA's authority; and (2) therefore, the HOA had authority to assess the Lots. View "Hi-Country Estates v. Frank" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals denying Defendant's motion for remand under rule 23B of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure after a jury convicted him of aggravated robbery, holding that the court of appeals did not err.On appeal of his conviction, Defendant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective by not supporting his mistaken identity defense with evidence that Defendant had prominent tattoos on his hands that were not visible in surveillance images of the robber. Defendant moved under rule 23B to supplement the record with facts concerning his trial counsel's alleged ineffective assistance. The court of appeals denied Defendant's rule 23B motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's rule 23B motion did not allege that the arresting officers would provide favorable testimony; and (2) therefore, Defendant failed to offer nonspeculative facts that, if true, would have established that he was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to question the officers about Defendant's tattoos or comment on that evidence in closing argument. View "State v. Samora" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court concluding that the parties' signed voluntary declaration of paternity (VDP) should be set aside because of the parties' fraud and a mutual mistake but that Taylor Scott should nevertheless be adjudicated the child's father, holding that there was no error.Sarah Benson and Taylor Scott, an unmarried couple, signed a VDP representing that Scott was the father of Benson's child when both parties know that Scott was not the child's biological father. When Benson later cut off contact between Scott and the child Scott filed a complaint seeking joint legal and physical custody. In response, Benson challenged the VDP. The district court set aside the VDP but concluded that, under the Utah Uniform Parentage Act, Scott should be adjudicated to be the child's father. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in looking to the factors set forth in Utah Code 78B-16-608 to disregard the genetic test results that would have excluded Scott as the child's father. View "Scott v. Benson" on Justia Law