Zagg, Inc. v Harmer

Harmer sued seeking an order allowing him to sell shares in Zagg without paying off notes which he signed to settle an earlier dispute as required in the settlement agreement. Zagg sought an injunction under Rule of Civil Procedure 65A which the district court denied ruling Zagg could collect the settlement amount through other means. The panel reversed holding that Zagg’s bargained for leverage over Harmer was a valuable right and Zagg would be irreparably harmed if the leverage was taken away by allowing Harmer to sell the shares. The panel cited case law form the 8th Circuit and the Delaware Chancery Court in support of its conclusion. The case was remanded to evaluate the other elements in preliminary injunction analysis.

State v Hards

Hards appealed his conviction for aggravated burglary. The panel affirmed. It held the government presented sufficient evidence that Hards entered the room and hit the occupant to allow an inference that he entered the room with intent to commit assault and thus this directed verdict motion was properly denied; that whether the illegally occupied building was dwelling or not was irrelevant as the aggravating factor is intent to commit a listed crime such as assault ; that Hards was tried as  a principle and not on an aiding and abetting theory and thus o jury charge on accomplice liability was required; and that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel as there was no need to investigate ownership of the building and hands offered only speculation that he was prejudiced by his decision to testify.

Hodgson v Farmington City

After losing on appeal, Hodgson refused to comply with orders to demolish a barn. City obtained an order to demolish the barn and Hodgson appealed. The panel determined that the issues raised by Hodgson were disposed of in the first appeal and there was no argument in her brief that the demolition order was improperly entered and thus affirmed.

In the Interest of A.P., K.P. and T.P. (R.P. and J.P. v State)

R.P. and J.P. appealed the order terminating reunification services. The panel affirmed holding failure to provide meaningful answers at the parenting evaluation and failure to disclose grandmother was on federal probation and had a history of child abuse and neglect supported termination services.

State v Ferguson

Ferguson appealed his conviction for insurance fraud arguing he had not presented a claim as required under Utah precedent. The panel affirmed holding that the precedent relied upon by Ferguson did not apply here as Ferguson was charged with submitting false proof and not with presenting a false claim.

Utah v Miera

MIera appealed his sentence arguing he shod have received probation instead of prison. The panel affirmed holding there was no abuse of discretion as Miera received the statutory term and had violated supervised release while awaiting sentencing.

FirstDigital Telecom, LLC v Procurement Policy Board

Telecom appealed the dismissal of its appeal by board. The panel affirmed. It held that under Utah Code 63G-6a-1703, Telecom was required to post bond or make a deposit  of an amount equal to 5% of the accepted bid. It did not post any security when its appeal was field and only posted the proper amount a week after the appeal was dismissed. Thus, Board’s order of dismissal was correct.

State v Monroe

Monroe appealed his sentence arguing the district court failed to make accuracy and relevance determinations on items in the presentence report. The panel affirmed. It acknowledged the district court did fail to make the required findings and remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to do so. However, it held that the district court essentially accepted Monroe’s objections and thus the sentence was reasonable under the circumstances.

State v Rose

Rose appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The panel affirmed. It held that under the totality of the circumstances which included an identified informant, the officer arriving within minutes to the scene, only one white motorhome being visible  supported a finding of reasonable suspicion that a child was driving the motorhome and thus the stop[ was proper and the resulting DUI conviction also proper.

Valencia v Labor Commission

Valencia appealed the denial of her petition for benefits alleging she established harmful industrial noise at her workplace as the legal cause of her hearing loss. The panel affirmed. It held that under 34A-2-503, the focus is on exposure which had the ordinary meaning of placing a person at risk. Because Valencia wore protection which reduced the amount of noise below the harmfulness threshold, she was not “exposed” to harmful noise and the Commission’s decision was thus correct.

In the Interests of K.L.S. (C.L.S. v State)

C.L. S. appealed the termination of his parental rights and claimed failure to provide counsel. The panel affirmed. It held that C.L.S. had waived counsel and decided to proceed pro se, failed to appeal one ground for termination found by the juvenile court and thus termination had to be affirmed and termination was in K.L.S.’s best interest as he was in a stable loving foster home and the foster parents were willing to adopt him.