Craig v Provo City

Craig filed suit against Provo which was dismissed for failure to file a required bond. He then filed a second suit after filing the bond. The district court ruled the savings act, Utah Code 78B-2-111, did not apply to claims against government and dismissed on limitations grounds. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that while the statue governing claims against government entities is comprehensive, it not the exclusive source of law noting that the statute does not provide any causes of action nor rules of evidence which would utterly defeat any claim against government entities and cannot be what the legislature intended. The panel held that 111 applies because it applies to all cases unless otherwise provided, the government claim statute does not have any contrary provisions, and allowing suits under 111 does not impact the notice and filing requirements.

Kimbal v Department of Corrections

Kimbal appealed the denial of his petition for extraordinary relief. The panela affirmed. It held that because Kimbal faced an indeterminate sentence of life, there was no statutory requirement that he complete treatment and his restrictions on treatment arose from smuggling a gun into prison and bad disciplinary record which do not prevent treatment in the future. It also held that there was no due process violation at the parole hearing as Kimbal had the opportunity to challenge the evidence he did not receive before the hearing and knew the basis for the decision.

Hillcrest Investment Company, LLC v Department of Transportation

Hillcrest appealed summary judgment to Department on its breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The panel affirmed. It held there was no breach of contract as the contract contained no requirement to build a frontage road and its reference to the warranty deed which did contain language about building a road was only referenced to identify the property purchased and thus did not impose a duty to build the road. It affirmed n the unjust enrichment claim as there is a contract here and Hillcrest cannot use equity to negotiate a better contract than the parties did after negotiation.

In the Interest of B.K. and A.K. (J.K. v A.P.)

J.K. appealed the termination of his parental rights. The panela affirmed holding the evidence that J.K. went periods of up to 2 years without communicating with his children and evidence of minimal support were enough to prove the ground of abandonment. It noted that  J.K. he made no effort to call or write his children while incarcerated and thus incarceration did not excuse his failure to communicate.

Tillotson v Meerkerk (Salt Lake Tribune proposed intervener)

Tribune moved to intervene in the underlying defamation case to challenge the designation of the case file as private. The district court denied the motion. The panel reversed and remanded with instructions. It first held that Tillotson’s argument that the case is moot was without merit as the issue of classifying the file is still live even though the underlying case was dismissed. It next held that the district court failed to make any findings and thus meaningful appellate review was impossible. The case was remanded to enter adequate findings and conclusions supporting the denial of the intervention motion.

State v Zazueta

Zazueta appealed her convictions for robbery and burglary and the revocation of her probation in another case. The panel affirmed. It held that the district court conserved the legally relevant standards and permissibly concluded the violent nature of the crimes and the high number in a short time outweighed Zazueta’s anger, depression and substance abuse issues.

Hamblin v State

Hamblin field for post-conviction relief arguing his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. The distract court denied his petition and the panel affirmed. It held that his claims against the trail attorney were procedurally barred as they could have been raised in the direct appeal of his convictions. It held that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise issues of trial counsel ineffectiveness as trial counsel’s decision to impeach the complaining witness instead of recommending a plea deal was not deficient performance as the impeachment resulted in acquittal on several counts and was thus in the range of reasonable strategic decisions entrusted to trial attorneys.