Larsen v Davis County School District

Larsen appealed the dismissal of his negligence claim against District arguing it was not barred by governmental immunity. The panel affirmed. It held that under Utah supreme Court precedent, government entities are immune if an assault or battery is a proximate cause of injury and apportionment of fault between the assault or battery and negligent acts is not available, as pled here there was battery when the teacher and Larsen engaged in sex acts, consent is not a defense to the battery as Larsen was more than 10 years younger than the teacher and a  student at the time of the acts and it was impossible to separate the damages pled between eh battery and nonphysical communication.

State v Paredez

Paredez appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The panel affirmed holding Paredez failed to challenge the district court’s alternative ground of inevitable discovery of the meth pipe in Paredez’s pants when Paredez would have been removed from the car to allow impounding.

Meritage Companies LLC v Gross and AK Meritage Companies LLC

Meritage appealed the denial of its motion to release a lis pendis, for a guarantee and for an injunction. The apneal affirmed holding that at eth time of the motion, the only court with jurisdiction to release the lis pendis was the Alaska trial court where the parties were litigating their dispute, guarantees are a permissive relief which the district court here denied and the injunction sought would have gone around the district court’s lack of jurisdiction.

State v Simmons

Simmons appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The panel affirmed. It held the affidavit in support of the blood draw warrant was adequate as it stated another officer observed the facts recited and officers can rely on the hearsay statements of other officers in the affidavit and Simmons state constitutional argument was unpreserved and affirmed on the service of warrant issue as Simmons did not challenge the alternate ruling that leaving a copy of the warrant in Simmons’ bag satisfied rule of Criminal Procedure 40(d).

American Express Bank FSB v Tanne

Tanne appealed summary judgment to Bank on its credit card collection claim. The panel affirmed holding the date the credit account was opened was in the record and an erroneous date cited in the order was harmless, Tanne’s affidavit did not contain any evidence to dispute Bank’s evidence, there was no evidence that destruction of the credit application was mean to extinguish the debt, providing copies of credit card account terms satisfies the statute of frauds and Tanne had actual knowledge of the hearing here as he participated in the phone conference setting the date and time and place.