Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Husband and Wife separated in 2005 and spent the next several years litigating their divorce. Ultimately, the divorce court awarded Wife all of her attorney fees and out-of-pocket expenses and a disproportionate amount of the marital assets. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Wife was entitled to fees and costs incurred related to appointing a receiver and hiring expert forensic accountants; (2) the district court abused its discretion in awarding Wife attorney fees and out-of-pocket costs in excess of the amount Husband caused her to incur and in basing its award upon its findings that Husband had breached an oral contract with Wife regarding a business they started; (3) the court exceeded its discretion in awarding Wife the full amount of dissipated assets without first estimating the maximum amount of assets Husband may have dissipated; (4) the court erred in declining to consider whether Husband was entitled to a credit or setoff for the separate property he contributed to the purchase and development of the marital residential property; and (5) the court properly declined to award Husband a setoff or credit for his managerial contributions to his business.View "Goggin v. Goggin" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether an attorney-client relationship that existed between a religious trust (Trust), and the Trust's attorneys at a law firm (Law Firm) continued after the Trust was reformed cy pres. Specifically, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the district court's reformation of the Trust altered the Trust to such an extent that it could no longer be considered the same client for purposes of the attorney-client privilege and the Utah Rules of Professional Misconduct. The district court (1) ordered Law Firm to disgorge privileged attorney-client information to the reformed Trust (Reformed Trust), concluding that reformation of the Trust did not sever the attorney-client privilege; and (2) disqualified Law Firm from representing Movants in substantially related matters in which Movants' interests were materially adverse to the Reformed Trust. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Trust and Reformed Trust were not the same client, and therefore, there was no attorney-client relationship between Law Firm and the Reformed Trust; and (2) therefore, the district court erred when it disqualified Law Firm from representing Movants and ordered Law Firm to disgorge privileged attorney-client information to the special fiduciary of the Reformed Trust.View "Snow, Christensen & Martineau v. Dist. Court" on Justia Law

In 2006, the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (District) filed an action to condemn six waterfront lots owned by Petitioner. When negotiations reached an impasse on the value of the lots, the District instituted the underlying condemnation proceeding. The jury returned a verdict for Petitioner in the amount of $56,000. Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court denied. Petitioner filed an appeal less than thirty days after the entry of the district court's ruling and order. The court of appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal without prejudice based upon lack of jurisdiction, holding that under Utah R. Civ. P. 7(f)(2) and the Supreme Court's decision in Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., Petitioner's appeal was not ripe because it was not taken from a final, appealable order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under Rule 7(f)(2), Petitioner's appeal was premature and that the court of appeals therefore correctly dismissed it without prejudice.View "Central Utah Water Conservancy Dist. v. King" on Justia Law

Petitioners obtained sufficient signatures to challenge a proposed tax increase approved by the Orem City Council via a referendum petition. The referendum petition was scheduled to go to a vote in the November 2013 election. In November 2012, the city attorney filed a final ballot title with the city recorder. Dissatisfied with the chosen language for the ballot title, Petitioners filed a petition for extraordinary relief, challenging the wording. The Supreme Court held that the city attorney did not abuse his discretion in drafting the proposed ballot title and that the proposed wording satisfied the statutory direction that the title be an impartial and true statement of the purpose of the measure. View "Burr v. City of Orem" on Justia Law

Defendant confessed to shooting a female victim during a custodial interrogation by detectives. Defendant moved to suppress the confession on the grounds that it was coerced. The district court granted the motion based on the detectives' invocation of Defendant's children as a method to get a confession. After clarifying that a confession is involuntary if the will of the accused has been overcome, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances of this case, Defendant's free will was not overcome, and therefore, the district court erred in concluding that the references in the interrogations to Defendant's children were coercive police tactics that rendered Defendant's confession involuntary. Remanded. View "State v. Arriaga-Luna" on Justia Law

Plaintiff received treatment at the University Hospital for injuries she received in an automobile accident. Plaintiff later sued the Hospital, alleging that she was rendered a paraplegic due to the Hospital's negligence. After a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of the Hospital. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the court of appeals' application of the "cure-or-waive rule" yielded an unfair result in this case; and (2) the court of appeals incorrectly determined that it was harmless error for the district court to include one of the jury instructions. In so holding, the Court rejected the cure-or-waive rule in its entirety and adopted a new standard set forth in People v. Hopt governing preservation of jury bias. View "Turner v. Univ. of Utah Hosps. & Clinics" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to aggravated murder and aggravated assault. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his plea, stating that he was confused when he entered his plea. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant was adequately informed of the nature of the charge and was not confused. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) Defendant received constitutionally adequate notice of the nature of the charge of his limited appeal rights; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Defendant entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily. View "State v. Candland" on Justia Law

Officer Dennis Nelson, a police officer with the Orem City Police Department (OCPD), was terminated from his position for using excessive force during a booking at the Orem City Jail. The Orem City Employee Appeals Board (Board) upheld the termination. The court of appeals upheld the Board's decision, concluding (1) the OCPD's decision to terminate Nelson was not inconsistent with prior instances of discipline under OCPD's excessive force policy; (2) alternatively, the Board justified any disparate application of OCPD's policy; and (3) the Board did not violate Nelson's procedural due process rights at his hearing before the Board. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals did not err in applying an abuse of discretion standard of review; and (2) the court of appeals correctly found that any procedural due process violations at the hearing were harmless. View "Nelson v. City of Orem" on Justia Law

Appellants, several irrigation companies, and Appellee, a family ranch, were water-rights holders in the Sevier River system. Appellants filed a complaint in district court alleging that Appellee's water right had been partially forfeited and partially abandoned. The district court granted summary judgment for Appellee, finding (1) Utah law did not provide for partial forfeiture or partial abandonment prior to 2002, and (2) Appellee was protected from partial forfeiture and abandonment after 2002 by a statutory exception. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the grant of summary judgment as to the post-2002 partial-forfeiture claim, holding that partial forfeiture has always been available in Utah; and (2) reversed the grant of summary judgment on the abandonment claim, holding that the district court erred in treating the abandonment claim as a claim under the forfeiture statute, as abandonment of a water right is a common-law claim, not a statutory claim. Remanded. View "Delta Canal Co. v. Frank Vincent Family Ranch, LC " on Justia Law

The City police department fired a police officer (Plaintiff) for reporting for duty while under the influence of alcohol. The board of appeals and court of appeals affirmed the decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol, in violation of the City's alcohol policy, as the portable breath test administered to Plaintiff accurately measured Plaintiff's breath alcohol and blood alcohol content; and (2) Utah Code 34-38-7 does not prohibit the City from deviating from its specified procedure of testing urine to establish blood alcohol content, as the statute does not apply to the City. View "Becker v. Sunset City" on Justia Law