Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2002, Appellant, a Mexican native and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded guilty to felony theft. Eight years later, deportation proceedings were initiated against Appellant, in part due to Appellant’s 2002 felony theft conviction. Appellant filed a petition asking the district court to vacate his 2002 plea under the Utah Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA) or, alternatively, through a writ of coram nobis. In his petition, Appellant claimed that his counsel was ineffective during the plea process by failing to disclose the possible immigration consequences related to his plea. The district court dismissed Appellant’s petition and writ of coram nobis, concluding (1) Appellant’s petition was time barred by the PCRA, and (2) Appellant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel, as Appellant knew or should have known that there were potential immigration consequences related to his plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to preserve his argument that his attorney affirmatively misrepresented the immigration consequences of his plea; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s petition for a writ of coram nobis, as Appellant had a remedy available to him through the PCRA. View "Oseguera v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was the owner of a boat that he docked in the marina at Jordanelle Reservoir. One day in 2008, Plaintiff walked out onto the floating dock and was injured when his boat “heaved” and struck him, shattering his shoulder. Plaintiff sued the State, which owns the marina, docks, boat slips, and reservoir, alleging that his injuries were due to the negligent adjustment of the dock. The State moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of governmental immunity. The district court granted the motion, concluding that Plaintiff’s injuries fell within the “natural condition” exception to the waiver of immunity. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the Jordanelle Reservoir was designed and created by human activity, and because it would not exist but for that activity, the reservoir is not a natural condition on the land under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act. Remanded. View "Glaittli v. State" on Justia Law

After law enforcement officers discovered child pornography on Defendant’s computer, they applied for and obtained a federal search warrant to search the computer. Defendant subsequently pled guilty to five counts of voyeurism. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the warrant was not sufficiently particular and lack probable cause and because his statements to the officers violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the warrant was sufficiently particular and supported by probable cause; and (2) Defendant was not in custody at the time he made the statements to the law enforcement officers so the officers’ failure to read him his Miranda rights did not violate the Fifth Amendment. View "State v. Fuller" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against America West Bank, L.C. (the Bank) alleging, among other claims, improper acceptance of unauthorized signatures. The Bank tendered defense of the claim to its insurer under the terms of a financial institution bond. The Utah Department of Financial Institutions subsequently closed the Bank and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. The FDIC mailed and published notices indicating that all claims against the Bank had to be submitted to the FDIC for administrative review. After the administrative claims review deadline, Plaintiff filed a proof of claim with the FDIC, which the FDIC disallowed because it was untimely filed. Plaintiffs then filed a notice of intent to prosecute. The district court granted the FDIC’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust the administrative claims review process made available to them by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the administrative exhaustion requirements of FIRREA deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) Plaintiffs’ failure to avail themselves of the available claims review process did not amount to a violation of due process. View "Summerhaze Co., L.C. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

Under Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act, plaintiffs who have a claim against a governmental “employee” for acts committed during the performance of the employee’s duties must file a notice of claim within one year after the claim arises or the claim is barred. In the instant case, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Brigham Young University (BYU) and its traffic cadet for negligently causing a motorcycle accident Plaintiff was involved in while leaving a BYU parking lot. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the BYU Defendants were “employees” of Provo City as defined in the Act at the time of the collision, and therefore, Plaintiff failed to file a timely notice of claim as required by the Act. The court of appeals remanded for further proceedings, holding that there was insufficient evidence that the BYU Defendants were “employees” under the Act and that the district court’s dismissal was premature. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in interpreting the statutory definition of “employee” and in reversing the trial court’s dismissal. View "Mallory v. Brigham Young Univ." on Justia Law

The State filed a juvenile court petition seeking an adjudication that Appellant had abused and neglected his three children. Near the end of the sixty-day statutory deadline for a hearing on the State’s petition, all parties stipulated to waiver of the deadline and to an extension of the trial date to allow Appellant additional time for expert discovery and trial preparation. Despite the parties’ prior stipulation to waive the sixty-day statutory deadline for a hearing, the juvenile court denied Appellant’s formal request for additional time on the ground that the governing statute required a final adjudication hearing within sixty days of the filing of the petition. The juvenile court subsequently entered an order adjudicating Appellant’s children abused and neglected and prohibited any further contact between Appellant and his children. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the parties had jointly stipulated for an extension of the sixty-day statutory deadline, Appellant’s request for additional time should not have been denied; and (2) instead, the juvenile court should have exercised its discretion to decide whether further discovery was justified under the circumstances of this case. View "In re M.H." on Justia Law

The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) condemned a fifteen-acre parcel owned by Michael Carlson despite the fact that it needed just over one acre for its planned project. At issue in this case was whether Utah Code 72-5-113 authorized UDOT’s condemnation of the excess property and whether the taking failed for lack of a “public use” as required under the Takings Clause of the Utah Constitution or United States Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed with UDOT’s construction of section 113 and granted summary judgment in favor of UDOT without expressly addressing the constitutionality of the taking. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s endorsement of UDOT’s statutory authority to condemn excess property for transportation purposes; but (2) reversed and remanded to allow the district court to determine the constitutionality of UDOT’s condemnation of Carlson’s excess property. View "Utah Dep’t of Transp. v. Carlson" on Justia Law

US Oil Sands, Inc. applied for a discharge permit from the Utah Board of Water Quality (BWQ) for its tar sands bitumen-extraction project. In 2008, the BWQ issued the discharge permit. The 2008 decision was reaffirmed by the Executive Secretary in 2011. Living Rivers, an environmental advocacy organization, intervened and sought administrative review of the Secretary’s decision. The BWQ affirmed the issuance of the 2008 permit on its merits. Living Rivers petitioned for review of the BWQ’s decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that because was no timely challenge to the 2008 decision, the original permit was final and not subject to further challenge on the merits. View "Living Rivers v. Utah Div. of Water Quality" on Justia Law

Mark Johnson and Elizabeth Johnson married in 1974 and divorced a decade later. Mark retired in 1999. In 2008, Elizabeth filed a qualified domestic relations order attempting to secure her portion of Mark’s retirement benefit. To comply with the 1984 divorce decree the district court awarded Elizabeth ongoing payments from the date Elizabeth filed for the clarifying order. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals (1) did not err in determining that an action to enforce the ongoing right to collect a portion of pension retirement benefits is not barred by the statute of limitations; (2) did not err in determining that Mark’s argument concerning laches was inadequately briefed; and (3) erred when it affirmed the district court’s award granting Elizabeth her marital fraction of Mark’s actual retirement benefits. Remanded. View "Johnson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

John Dorsey filed a series of unemployment claims for time periods when he was in Mexico during the offseason of his employment at a Utah resort. Because he was considered a seasonal employee Dorsey was granted a deferral from the requirement of search for work as a prerequisite to eligibility for benefits. The Department of Workforce Services later concluded that Dorsey had been ineligible to receive unemployment benefits during his trips to Mexico under its rule deeming unemployment claimants ineligible for benefits if they travel outside the United States for more than two weeks. The Workforce Appeals Board affirmed. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Department's rule as extended to a seasonal worker not required to search for work is incompatible with the governing statutory position; and (2) because Dorsey was “able” and “available” for work he was eligible for unemployment benefits under the statute. View "Dorsey v. Dep’t of Workforce Servs." on Justia Law