In the Interests of X.C.H. (G.H. v State)

G.H. appealed the termination of his parental rights. The panel affirmed. It held that G.H. was not entitled to notice of the initial hearing in the 2014 proceeding in this case, as a 2010 order involving X.C.H. and the mother did not establish paternity and at the time of the 2014 proceeding, he had not established paternity and was not entitled to notice. It held G.H.’s argument that the juvenile court improperly shifted burdens was unpreserved, G.H. inadequately briefed his exceptional circumstances exception argument and failed to explain why he was unable to raise the issue below and in any event the situation her is not exceptional as G.H. bore the burden of proving paternity and a parental relationship with X.C.H. It finally held the evidence was sufficient to terminate as G.H. made token effort to communicate with X.C.H. and provided no support.

State v Scott

Scott appealed his sex abuse and drug possession convictions and his sentence. The panel affirmed. It held the challenges to his convictions were barred because he pled guilty and did not move to withdraw his plea. It held the sentencing court considered Scott’s mental deficiencies and all other mitigating circumstances, Scott’s blame of the 13 year old, Scott’s unsuitability for probation and the lack of an alternative to prison time and thus the sentence imposed was within the court’s discretion.

Mountain View Colonial Apartments v Isais

Isais appealed the order of evection entered against her. The panel reversed. It held that nondeferential review was appropriate as the only issue here is whether the notice all agreed was served was legally sufficient. It held there was jurisdiction to hear the case as Isais field a timely rule of civil procedure 59 motion which tolled the 10-day appeal clack and field a notice of appeal within the 10-day window after eth motion was denied. The panel held the case was an unlawful detainer case as Apartments did not allege any of the grounds set out in the nuisance statute and used the expedited proceedings associated with an unlawful detainer statute. It finally held the notice here was legally inadequate as it did not contain the require demand to comply with the lease or leave, did not set out the three day period to comply and in fact told Isais that two more notices were required before she could be evicted.

Bahnmaier v Northern Utah Healthcare Corporation and Rytting

Bahnmaier appealed summary judgment to Corporation and Rytting on her breach of contract and tort claims. The panel affirmed. On eth contract claims, it held no implied contract breach occurred as company disclaimed any contractual effect of its drug use policy and in any event followed the policy and not breach of the express employment contract occurred as corporation received two reports that Bahnmaier reported to work drunk less than a year after she was warned for showing up drunk and the only similarly situated employee identified by Bahnmaier was also fired. It affirmed as to the negligence claims because Bahnmaier did not allege any duties other than the contract terms and affirmed as to defamation and interference with economic relations because Bahnmaier testified she might have given the impression she was drunk during an interview with Rytting and thus qualified immunity defeats these claims.

Gibson v Department of Workforce Services

Gibson aped the order denying his applications for unemployment benefits. The panel affirmed holding Gibson failed to prove good cause for quitting as the safety concerns he raised were resolved and he had not been punished for raising them.