Denison Mines (USA) Corporation v KGL Associates, Inc.

KGL appealed the district court order confirming an arbitration award to Dennison. The panel affirmed. it held that the arbitration agreement did not define what “on the merits” means and thus the legal term of art definition of deciding issues submitted as a matter of substance instead of form applied and under that definition the interim award was on the merits as it determined KGL abandoned the project involved, rejected KGL’s fraud defense and its claim for money damages while ruling Denison was entitled to damages and ordered KGL to release a lien and the request for verification of Denison’s damages did not change the outcome as the confirmation was solely to amounts not the entitlement to damages. It held the agreement did not require the interim award to resolve all disputes nor did it limit consideration of issues after the interim award to attorney fees and costs. It held that KGL was not entitled to consideration of all its claims as the agreement only required a “reasoned award” which the panel defined as one that provides a listing, mention of expression or statement of justification for the award which was provide here in the arbitrators 19 page award document. The panel noted that Utah statute does not set a consequence, let alone require vacating an award, for delayed issuance of an arbitration ruling and in any event KGL did not demonstrate any prejudice from the delays here. It also held that the arbitrator limited its decision to the evident in the record and any error in reconsidering the record was merely procedural and there was no proof the overall arbitration procedure anything but a fair and honest and the parties’ rights here were respected. It finally rejected KGL’s partiality argument holding the request for verification, reconsideration of the record, failure to explicitly discuss two of KGL’s arguments were at best speculative arguments and its argument about the fraud defense was an attempt to get merits review unavailable in the confirmation context. 

State v Gallegos

Gallegos appealed his murder, assault and obstruction of justice convictions. The panel affirmed. It first held that Utah’s rule on eyewitness identification evidence does not require a threshold finding of suggestive police conduct as the Utah Supreme Court has never adopted such a requirement and has evaluated eyewitness identification evidence in cases where there was no suggestive police conduct. It held the club manager’s testimony was sufficiently reliable because the manager saw Gallegos face to face in a lit parking lot; looked at Gallegos during the fight and focused on his features, had no physical limitations on his ability to see and was not threatened or under any boas a the tie of the fight; the array used was problematic as it had different size of photo and different url for Gallegos and a detective who knew Gallegos’ photo was there and it did not require a yes no answer from manager as the time, but, was at most as suggestive as identification procedures upheld in Utah case law; and manager’s training and focus suggest an ability to remember. It alternatively held in that held that even if the manager’s testimony should have been excluded, any error was harmless given the numerous other witnesses and physical evidence that Gallegos stabbed the two victims and threw away physical evidence shortly thereafter. It finally held there was no likelihood that two stray references to Gallegos’ gang affiliation so influenced the jury as to require a mistrial.

In the Interests of A.C. (C.C. v State)

C.C. appealed the order terminating his parental right. the panel affirmed holding C.C. failed to challenge the findings that he abandoned A.C. and is an unfit parent and termination is in A.C.’s best interest as it allows A.C. to adopted by his foster parents with whom A.C. has bonded and C.C. faces a long period if imprisonment plus made no attempts to stay in touch with A.C.’s case worker or visit or support A.C. after he was removed from C.C.’s home.