State v Legg

Legg appealed the revocation of his probation. The panel dismissed the appeal as moot. It held that the case was moot because Legg had served his prison sentence and been released thus reversing the revocation of probation would have no legal effect. . The panel held two cases which allowed review for probation revocation after sentences were served and defendants released were wrongly decided as one treated the case as one challenging a conviction and the other failed to explain why collateral legal consequences flowed from the revocation and treated mootness as discretionary instead of jurisdictional as required by Utah Supreme court precedent. Thus, the panel disavowed those anomalous cases. It held the collateral legal consequences exception did not apply in this case because courts will only presume collateral consequences and review when a challenge is made to a conviction and here the only challenge is to revocation of probation and Legg failed to prove any collateral legal consequences arising form the revocation itself which is not speculative or would not be triggered by decisions of Legg to reoffend.

State v Rackham

Rackham appealed his sexual battery conviction. The panel reversed and remanded or a new trial. It held the district court erred in admitting prior bad act evidence involving other relatives of Rackham because, while it was proper as to knowledge given Rackham did not concede that element, the evidence of more egregious touching of younger girls was not similar to the allegations in this case and cold have led the jury to convict based on bad character instead of actual guilt and the victim here testified of earlier incidents she communicated told Rackham that his touching her was unwelcome. As the case is a credibility case, the panel declared its confidence in the verdict was undermined given the prominence of the other bad acts evidence in the state’s case and reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Utah Department of Transportation v Coalt, Inc.

Coalt appealed judgment for Department condemning its land and the formula for just compensation. The panel affirmed the condemnation and reversed as to the formula. It held Department was entitled to use eminent domain to obtain Coalt’s and because the property was adjacent to a nature preserve and adding the property to the preserve allowed Department to mitigate certain environmental consequences of the construction of the Legacy Parkway and further allowed Department to settle an environmental lawsuit and obtain mitigation credit for future construction all of which fits within the public transportation purpose of allowing the Legacy and other projects to proceed. The panel held that valuation of the property had to take into account the increase of value from the Legacy construction because Department did not brief the issue, the district court explanation was inadequate and was competently challenged by Coalt on appeal.

Poulsen v Farmers Insurance Exchange

Poulson appealed summary judgment to Farmers arguing she was covered for water damage caused by a severe storm. The panel affirmed. It held there was no coverage under the policy because the policy only covered water damage arising from storm damage to the roof and an incomplete roof is not a roof for coverage purposes.