J.P. Furlong Company v Board of Oil, Gas and minerals and Department of Natural resources

Furlong petitioned for review of Board’s decision imposing a joint operating agreement as to Companies oil lease. The Court denied the petition. It stated its concern that Board did not make detailed findings about why it did not adopt Company’s suggested amendments, but, held there was substantial evidence in support of Board’s decision that the agreement was just and reasonable as it was based on the model agreement in the industry, Board had approved similar agreements in the past and noted all the other owners in the pooled field had adopted the same agreement. It rejected Company’s argeutmns that board failed to balance the interests holding Utah Code 40-6-6.5(2) does not contain that requirement and case relied upon by Company die snot impose any such requirement either.

Mountaineer Enterprises, Inc. v Homeowners Association for the Colony at White Pines Canyon

Associations appealed the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in this breach of contract case. The court reversed. It held that to prevail here, Enterprises was require to prove that Association through its actions intentionally relinquished through waiver both the requirement that Enterprises have a certain amount of insurance and an antiwaiver provision, adopted the rule that mere failure to enforce a contractual provision does not waive an antiwaiver provision and held there was no evidence here that Association relinquished its right to enforce under the antiwaiver provision. It also resolved a conflict in court precedent by holding that there is no requirement to prove prejudice as part of a waiver claim and repudiating the precedent to the contrary

Potter et al. v South Salt Lake City

Potter appealed summary judgment to City on her challenge to an ordinance vacating parts of two roads. The Court affirmed. It held that the term “public street” in Utah code 10-9a-609.5(1) could mean either the part of a street which someone has petitioned to vacate or the entire street from beginning to end, but in the context of the vacating statue is best read to only apply to the part of the street being vacated because the statute focuses on the part of the street actually being vacated and requiring a listing of property owners miles away seems is difficult to reconcile with the statute’s purpose and held that under this reading there were no adjacent landowners and the petition was thus lawful. It held that the requirement that a person challenging the vacation of a street or other land use actions to prove prejudice is good law, but, held the controlling formulation in the Springfield Citizen’s  decision of proof the decision would have been different absent the procedural irregularity alleged is close to insurmountable and thus untenable and adopted a new rule that prejudice is shown when there is a reasonable likelihood the legal defect in the process changed the outcome of the proceeding and further held Potter failed to prove even that in this case as she admitted there was no effect whatever from failure to list property-owners. It finally held the notice of hearing satisfied the statutory requirements and the fact the city attorney’s advice affected the substance of eh deliberations did not make the notice inadequate.