Young Resources Limited Partnership v Promontory Landfill LLC and Promontory Point Land Resources LLC

Young appealed the dismissal of several challenges to land transfers on limitations and merger grounds. The panel affirmed on limitations grounds. It affirmed as to challenges to two transfers done without young’s prior approval as suit was filed years after the longest possible limitations period ran, they were not quiet title actions as Young had no possessory interest whatever and the case relied upon by Young involved equitable titleholders not strangers to the title. It affirmed dismissal of the claims for declaratory judgment that Landfill was not a bona fide purchaser and development rights were not assignable as Young had constructive notice of its rights in 2004 when the deed in the first transfer was recorded without reservation of any rights to Young and the second transfer occurred in 2004 as well which was recorded and thus Young was also on notice as to that transfer and the limitations period expired at the attest in 2011 several years before suit was filled and the panel held that the issue of what burden a plaintiff bears when it does not plead the discovery rule is open and declined to decide the issue here as Young inadequately briefed it and never raised the issue below.

State v Wood

Wood appealed his assault and forgery sentences arguing he should have received probation or at least concurrent sentences. The panel affirmed. It held that Wood’s challenge to prison time was based on n argument to reweigh the factors which is not appropriate on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion and here there was no abuse of discretion as Wood beat the assault victim, pointed a gun at her head and threatened to kill her and then  held her captive for several hours to get account information to withdraw money from an ATM and Wood’s girlfriend’s probation sentence was justifiable given her different criminal history and wood’s role as instigator of the attack. It affirmed consecutive sentences for the assault and the forgeries holding there was no plain error in how the district court weighted the factors and there was no ineffectiveness as the district court addressed the issues Wood argues should have been made and consecutive sentences were imposed anyway.

State v Sosa

Sosa appealed the denial of motion to suppress. The panel affirmed holding there was no evidence in the record that the officer who made the traffic stop actually extended the stop by requesting a drug-sniffing dog be sent and asking the dog sniff the car involved here once it arrived as the ticketing process was not completed by the time the dog sniff occurred.

Kirkham v McConkie et al.

Kirkham appealed summary judgment to defendants on her legal malpractice and related claims. The panel affirmed holding the issue of whether defendants were required to file a counterpetition for increased child support was a question requiring expert testimony and Kirkham did not designate an expert and thus could not meet her evidentiary burden at summary judgment.