State v. Bond, 2015 UT 88 (September 30, 2015)
In this criminal appeal, the Utah Supreme Court clarified that unpreserved federal constitutional claims are not subject to heightened review but are to be reviewed under the plain error doctrine.
In this criminal appeal, the Utah Supreme Court clarified that unpreserved federal constitutional claims are not subject to heightened review but are to be reviewed under the plain error doctrine.
This case involves a public utility’s demand for indemnification from an employer under the High Voltage Overhead Lines Act (HVOLA) for all liability the public utility incurred when an employee came into contact with an overhead power line. The court…
In this foreclosure action, the prior lien holder (defendant) gave the subordinate lien holder (plaintiff) an inflated calculation of the amount required to pay off the prior lien. Defendant subsequently outbid the plaintiff at the sale. Plaintiff asserted that defendant’s…
Father moved to modify custody two months after the parties resolved a dispute over the amount of child support. Concluding the father failed to show a substantial change in circumstances in the intervening two months since it had accepted the…
This case involves claims for wrongful termination by former Wal-Mart employees who were fired for being involved in physical altercations with shoplifters. The employees filed suit in federal district court, and the court certified the question to the Utah Supreme…
The Utah Supreme Court held that a grandparent visitation order under Utah Code § 30-5-2 overriding a parent’s decision is subject to strict scrutiny review, requiring proof that the order is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest. In order…
The court held, as a matter of first impression, that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), does not require the jury to make factual determination underlying a restitution order beyond a reasonable doubt.
Granting summary judgment, the district court excluded deposition testimony because it lacked foundation and was nonresponsive to the question posed by the employers counsel during the deposition. The Utah Supreme Court concluded that it was error to exclude the testimony…
The Tenth Circuit held, as a matter of first impression, that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e) is jurisdictional. Because the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a motion to withdraw the defendant’s guilty plea after the imposition of a…