Bagley v Bagley

Bagley in her capacity of the heir and personal representative of her dead husband sued herself for negligently causing his death in a one car accident. The district court dismissed both the wrongful death claim under Utah Code 78B-3-106 and the survivor’s claim under 78B-3-107 ruling tortfeasors can’t sue themselves under the statutes. The panel reversed. It held that under both 106 and 107 the only person excluded is the decedent here the husband. Thus, allegedly negligent heirs and spouses as personal representative can sue themselves. The panel noted that the legislature added 78B-3-106.5 which dealt eliminated the presumption in favor of tortfeasor spouses to serve as personal representative as additional evidence the suits can proceed. It finally declared that if the legislature did not like this outcome, it was free to amend the statute.

State v Black

The State appealed the district court’s orders acquitting Black and dismissing the charges against her. The orders were based on eyewitness testimony not presented at trial which contradicted the victim’s account. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that under Utah law the district court lacked power to enter the acquittal order as the jury had returned a guilty verdict. Treating the acquittal order as an arrestment of judgment, the panel held this was erroneously entered as the district court relied on evidence not presented at trial. It finally held that the dismissal of charges was error as the district court had already denied a directed verdict motion demonstrating there was evidence to support the guilty verdict. Based on state’s concession the new evidence may lead to a different outcome, the case was remanded to consider Black’s motion for a new trial.

Sherratt v State

Sherratt sought to appeal the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Noting that Sherratt only appealed the post-conviction dismissal, not the separate denial of declaration of actual innocence and there was no possible voidness issue with the post-conviction order as there was no motion to recuse the judge as there was in the declaration of actual innocence case, the panel summarily disposed of the case as the notice of appeal was almost two years late.

Torres v Madsen

Madsen appealed the denial of his motion to reconsider dismissal of his claim for attorney fees. The panel affirmed. It held Torres claim was under a contract that lacked an attorney fee provision and the Utah Supreme Court case relied upon by Madsen was thus inapplicable. One judge added a concurrence noting the contract with the fee provision was neither signed nor performed and thus was never executed as required by Utah code 78B-5-826.