Mower v Moyer and Thrive Wholesale Growers, Inc.

Mower appealed summary judgment on his breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The panel affirmed. It held that Mower failed to follow Rule of Civil Procedure 7 in that he did not state the facts he was arguing were contested and made no citations to the record and thus the district court correctly ruled that he admitted he was not a party to the contract, there was no abuse of discretion in not showing leniency to Mower as a pro se given his failure to follow Rule 7 and his deposition testimony that he was not a party to the contract, Mower and Thrift were entitled to summary judgment as Mower was not a party to the contract and any error in dismissing the unjust enrichment claim was invited by Mower.

Estate of Flygare et al. v Ogden City and Black & McDonald LLC

Estate and other plaintiffs appealed summary judgment to City and Black in their negligence claim. The panel affirmed. It held that the panel had jurisdiction as Estate field a properly styled rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion and that motion asked for relief in the form of alteration or amendment of the summary judgment order and thus the 30-day clock to appeal did not run until the motion was denied. It held that under Utah Supreme Court precedent, City owed no duty to light its streets, the fact the crosswalk where the truck on passenger collision occurred was on a busy surface street did not create a duty to light and failure to maintain the lights did not place plaintiffs in a worse condition and there was no evidence plaintiffs detrimentally relied upon the streetlight here working and thus there was no duty to maintain the lights gratuitously installed.

Goldenwest Federal Credit Union v Kenworthy

Goldenwest appealed summary judgment to Kenworthy arguing the statute of limitations had not run. The panel reversed in a memorandum opinion. Kenworthy field a petition for rehearing which the panel granted holding its earlier decision was based on an argument which Goldenwest failed to preserve or argue on appeal, the arguments it did make did not demonstrate error and, while Kenworthy was not strictly entitled to judgment as a matter of law, affirmance is required to vindicate the preservation rule. The panela also affirmed an attorney fee award in the district court to Kenworthy and awarded attorney fees on appeal.

Snyder v Labor Commission

Snyder sought review of Commission’s decision affirming the rejection of his claim for permanent disability benefits. The panel affirmed. It noted that Snyder inadequately briefed five of his six arguments and affirmed on those issues for failure to carry his burden of persuasion. It affirmed on the sufficiency of the evidence argument holding medical panel’s conclusion the arthritis in Snyder’s shoulder was not medically caused by the hammer which fell on his shoulder was supported by the medical records, the presence of arthritis at the initial surgery over a decade ago and evidence of Snyder’s repetitive use of his shoulder at work and rafting trips.

Baker v Park city Municipal Corporation

Baker appealed summary judgment to City in their challenge to City’s denial of their application for a plat amendment. The panel affirmed. It held that City’s determination that good cause exited to deny the application was legally sufficient as it implicitly found good cause did not exist to approve the plat amendment and was supported by sufficient evidence because allowing the development would be at odds with the prohibitions on surrounding lots to subdivide and would exacerbate problems with development density. It also held the decision was legal as the application was not entitled to approval and the good cause standard used was consistent with state law.