Posts tagged as:

Utah

January 24 roundup

by Ted Frank on January 24, 2007

{ 2 comments }

Do as we say dept.: “The head of the Utah Highway Patrol’s anti-DUI squad has been arrested on suspicion of drunken driving after crashing his patrol car.” (Deseret News, Jun. 30; Stephen Hunt, “Ex-UHP lieutenant pleads not guilty to single DUI count”, Salt Lake Tribune, Jul. 6)(via Balko).

It seems Wal-Mart was supposed to use 10-point type for its “While Supplies Last” disclaimer when advertising its Early Bird specials in Utah, but instead used 7-point type. So naturally Matthew Howell, an attorney with the Provo law firm of Fillmore Spencer, has filed a would-be class action lawsuit against the giant retailer, on behalf of named clients Brandon and Tonya Barker. (Grace Leong, “Couple files suit over Wal-Mart early-bird deals”, Provo Daily Herald, Apr. 21).

{ 2 comments }

“Not getting any better,” in the opinion of HALT, the consumer-protection group that looks out for the interests of legal clients. The group has issued a report card rating each of the 50 state lawyer grievance systems, updating a similar effort four years ago. Worst state: Utah. Worst big state: California, ranked #46. Best state: Connecticut. Best big state: Pennsylvania (yes, really). (David Giacalone, Mar. 8).

{ 1 comment }

By extending civil liability to acts of terrorism overseas, the Patriot Act has unleashed a new weapon of mass destruction at Al Qaida: The Plaintiff’s Bar. Last Friday, they achieved their first victory. (Dawn House, “GI injured in Afghan war wins lawsuit”, Salt Lake Tribune, Feb 18)

{ 4 comments }

A local columnist reminisces:

Salt Lake City attorney Brian Barnard used to sift through state and local statutes passed decades earlier and since declared unconstitutional, then find a plaintiff to fight them in court.

The laws were normally declared unconstitutional through agreement with government lawyers and the court. Barnard then would be paid attorney fees by the state.

But former Attorney General David Wilkinson disliked the idea of paying Barnard attorney fees, so for a time during his 1980s tenure, he would fight the claim of unconstitutionality. That would require Barnard to file more briefs, adding hours to his work and eventually giving him a fatter paycheck when the attorney’s fees came due.

One time, however, Wilkinson was so late in approving Barnard’s attorney fees that the civil rights attorney persuaded a judge to garnishee Wilkinson’s state salary to satisfy the payment. Wilkinson approved the payment right away.

(Paul Rolly, “Attorney steps on some toes”, Salt Lake Tribune, Dec. 9) (via State of the Beehive).

{ 1 comment }

First things first

by Ted Frank on September 8, 2005

Not long after some 1,000 firefighters sat down for eight hours of training, the whispering began: “What are we doing here?”

As New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin pleaded on national television for firefighters – his own are exhausted after working around the clock for a week – a battalion of highly trained men and women sat idle Sunday in a muggy Sheraton Hotel conference room in Atlanta. . . .

The firefighters, several of whom are from Utah, were told to bring backpacks, sleeping bags, first-aid kits and Meals Ready to Eat. They were told to prepare for “austere conditions.” Many of them came with awkward fire gear and expected to wade in floodwaters, sift through rubble and save lives.

“They’ve got people here who are search-and-rescue certified, paramedics, haz-mat certified,” said a Texas firefighter. “We’re sitting in here having a sexual-harassment class while there are still [victims] in Louisiana who haven’t been contacted yet.”

How much fear of litigation do you need to let a city burn to ensure no one accuses you of failing to protect against sexual harassment? We might be hearing more stories like this, except FEMA, again with its priorities straight, has told firefighters not to talk to reporters. (Lisa Rosetta, “Frustrated: Fire crews to hand out fliers for FEMA”, Salt Lake Tribune, Sep. 6 (via Instapundit)).

New laws that went into effect in Michigan and Utah at the beginning of the month could open up substantial and surprising areas of civil and criminal liability for entities that put out email newsletters, critics say. The laws authorize parents, guardians and others to enroll minors’ email addresses in new do-not-mail registries; after 30 days’ listing, it becomes illegal for anyone to send material unsuitable to minors to such addresses even at the account holder’s request. Among material that has in various contexts been tagged as unsuitable to minors are sites such as Salon.com and discussions of various controversial public issues. (Declan McCullagh, “Why ribaldry could earn you prison time”, News.com, Jun. 27). According to one commentator, an email may be unlawful if it merely contains a link to a third party site (such as a newspaper’s or magazine’s website) which in turn displays advertising for beer, wine, betting or other products and services that are off limits to minors. (Paul Collins, “New Michigan and Utah Child Protection Registry Laws”, spamfo.co.uk, Jun. 29). Already, libertarian feminist author and FoxNews.com commentator Wendy McElroy has suspended publication of her email newsletter, citing fear of liability under the new laws (“Suspension of Emailed Ifeminist Newsletter”, History News Network/Liberty & Power, Jul. 13)(via Tom Palmer). It is contemplated that maintainers of email newsletters that wish to retain the right to discuss or link to liquor/gambling/off-color content will purchase match/purge services on a monthly basis from the registrars of the do-not-mail lists, but such cross-checking will require the payment of fees as well as raising troubling privacy questions. For details of how entrepreneurial Utah law firms have seized on earlier anti-spam legislation to generate mass litigation against legitimate businesses in that state, see my Reason Online article, “You May Already Be a Loser”, Dec. 8, 2003.

Sione Havili was convicted of felony arson. He pled guilty to tossing two plastic jugs filled with gasoline into a home. After serving his time, he wanted to play college football, like any average kid. Utah school officials denied him his right to play football and have now been sued. (“Former running back sues Utah AD, former president,” MSNBC Jul. 10.) [Cross-posted at SoCalLawBlog]. Good for Utah. Torching someone’s house is just plain wrong.

Echoes of California’s celebrated smog-fee affair:

A class-action lawsuit seeking refunds for 120,000 Utahns wrongly charged millions of dollars in sales taxes for floor coverings and installation has been criticized as a full-retirement plan for lawyers rather than a boon to consumers.

That is because the erroneously taxed consumers could have gotten a full refund — simply by calling the Utah State Tax Commission and making a claim.

“There was no need for a class-action lawsuit,” said Assistant Attorney General Clark Snelson, who represented the Utah State Tax Commission in litigation against challenging the tax collections. “Individuals had the ability to come to the Tax Commission to get their refund, which made the lawsuit unnecessary.”

Under the terms of the settlement, “half of the $5.7 million settlement goes to plaintiffs’ attorneys and investigators”. (Dawn House, “Was tax refund lawsuit needed?”, Salt Lake Tribune, Jun. 30).

While just about everything else has become more actionable in today’s compensation culture, there has been a countertrend in family law. Most states have barred suits for the ancient tort of “alienation of affection” by jilted spouses. Utah (May 18, 2000) and North Carolina are exceptions, as is Illinois; there, Steven Cyl is suing a neighbor he says stole his wife. “Is this thing for real?” asks the defendant. Previous Illinois alienation-of-affection plaintiffs include the always-entertaining ex-Rep. Mel “Did I win the Lotto?” Reynolds, whose case was thrown out for unspecified reasons. (Steve Patterson, “‘This guy, he ruined my life’ — so man sues”, Chicago Sun-Times, Nov. 15 (via Bashman); “Former Congressman Mel Reynolds takes estranged wife’s lover to court”, Jet, Aug. 12, 2002; “Davidson Wrestling Coach Awarded $1.4 Million For ‘Theft of Wife?s Heart’”, North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, May 23, 2001). The ever-obnoxious Pat Buchanan approves. (“What is a Family Worth?”, Aug. 11, 1997; Hutelmyer v. Cox (N.C. App. 1999)).

We’ll stipulate that Warren Jeffs is not a sympathetic defendant. We’ll further stipulate that that’s an understatement. Jeffs, who calls himself “The Prophet,” is the current leader of the cultish polygamous “Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” estimated with 10,000 members, a few dozen of whom are his wives. (The Church broke off from its namesake when the mainstream Mormons abolished polygamy in 1890.) “Utah and Arizona prosecutors have been investigating allegations of welfare and tax fraud, incest, child abuse and forced marriages of young girls to adult men in the FLDS community” on the state border. Jeffs allegedly grants himself the power to re-assign spouses and children amongst families. The FLDS has also been excommunicating hundreds of teenage boys, allegedly to reduce competition for wives in the cult; the youths, who’ve grown up uneducated, are now completely isolated from their families and the community they grew up in.

Lawyers across the country have been bringing lawsuits. We make no comment on the claims of assault, terroristic threats, extortion, molestation, and kidnapping; such claims are legally legitimate to the extent that they’re true.

More problematic, however, are the allegations of fraud and conspiracy and the demand for injunctive relief and some damages: the complaint poses that FLDS promised “eternal life” to its members; by excommunicating the plaintiffs, they have not only breached that promise, but they have caused the plaintiffs to “suffer[] the emotional and psychological injuries resulting from… having been condemned to eternal damnation.” One can immediately see the trouble that could arise from making theological disputes actionable (see also Feb. 9). Courts have enough trouble adjudicating truth; it is perhaps not wise to also ask them to adjudicate Truth. The risk is that the failure of criminal authorities to adequately intercede may prompt civil courts to create precedents with consequences beyond a polygamous cult getting its just deserts. (AP, Aug. 30; Angie Wagner, “Ousted from sect, ‘lost boys’ start anew”, AP, Sep. 7; Sylvia Moreno, “Polygamous Sect Moves In, And Texas Town Asks ‘Why?’”, Washington Post, Sep. 7; Jon Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven; Child Protection Project; Phoenix New Times coverage) (via Heller).

{ 1 comment }

Contrary to some expectations, Philadelphia juries have not been proving a soft touch for “opt-out” plaintiffs who’ve journeyed there from around the country to sue drugmakers over alleged side effects from the diet-drug compound. One recent jury awarded a mere $4,000 to five women from Utah after a three-week trial, and another returned an outright defense verdict in a case brought by four Philadelphia women. Most of the plaintiffs exhibit heart murmurs and other subtle heart irregularities which they contend were brought on by the use of Pondimin and Redux, but a plaintiff’s lawyer says their case is weakened because most display no symptoms and are not under a doctor’s care for the claimed irregularities. “They don’t have treating doctors who will back up their stories,” agrees a lawyer for Wyeth. “The juries aren’t buying it.” (L. Stuart Ditzen, “Diet-drug lawsuits netting slim payoffs”, Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 16). For more on fen-phen, see Jan. 25, Jan. 6 and links from there; Apr. 28 ($1 billion verdict in Texas for fatality claimed to be linked to drug).

{ 1 comment }

“The University of Utah agreed yesterday to let students opt out of activities that conflict with their religious beliefs, settling a lawsuit brought by a Mormon drama student who refused to recite lines that contained the F-word and took the Lord?s name in vain. Christina Axson-Flynn, 24, had sued the university in federal court, accusing it of violating her to right to freedom of speech and religion.” (“College, Mormon student settle theatrical-swearing case”, AP/First Amendment Center, Jul. 15; Elizabeth Neff and Shinika A. Sykes, “U. settles case over student’s rights on stage”, Salt Lake Tribune, Jul. 15). The “university will reimburse Axson-Flynn for tuition and fees paid during the 1998-99 academic year and, through the state’s risk management office, pay her attorneys’ fees of approximately $250,000.” (Angie Welling, “U., Axson-Flynn settle civil rights suit”, Deseret News, Jul. 15). See our coverage of Jan. 24, 2000 and Feb. 16, 2004.

“Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction during the Super Bowl halftime show may be a lot of things, but it’s apparently not worth $5,000. A judge rejected a Utah lawyer’s claim that CBS owner Viacom should pay him $5,000 for having to see Jackson’s bared breast during the Feb. 1 show. Eric Stephenson, contending false advertising, sued Viacom in small-claims court.” (AP/San Francisco Chronicle, May 27). On the earlier Boobgate lawsuit by Terri Carlin of Knoxville, Tenn., see Feb. 5, Feb. 8 and Feb. 14.

Updating our story of Jan. 24, 2000: “University of Utah theater professors may have violated the constitutional rights of a former student when they refused to allow her to omit profanity from an in-class performance, a federal appeals court ruled [Feb. 3].” Overturning a district court decision, the unanimous Tenth Circuit panel said Christina Axson-Flynn was entitled to a jury trial on her claim that the university theater program violated her rights when it refused to let her avoid reciting profane lines assigned to her characters, and that its claim to be standing on pedagogical principle was a pretext for religious discrimination. (Angie Welling, “Ex-U. actress to get jury trial in bias lawsuit”, Deseret News, Feb. 4). More: David Bernstein comments. Update Jul. 17: case settles.

St. Petersburg Times has an article quoting this site’s letters comment section at some length, and also quoting yours truly. (Stephen Nohlgren, “Jingly justice or puny payoff?”, Feb. 9). The case has also been examined recently in Forbes (William Baldwin, “Lawyers 1, Consumers 0″, Feb. 16); Chuck Shepherd’s News of the Weird; and the Salt Lake Tribune (Paul Rolly and JoAnn Jacobsen-Wells, Jan. 14: Salt Lake City resident Bob Cole got a check for two cents)(more on class actions).

Reason Online (Dec. 8) has now published a longer version of my piece on California’s very bad new anti-spam law, which will spell courtroom trouble for legitimate marketers nationwide unless the federal CAN-SPAM bill, which would override it, is enacted instead. The new version goes into detail about some of the precedents that make the California law scary, including the litigation that has arisen under Utah’s one-year-old law giving individual recipients a right to sue over spam, and the record of junk-fax class actions filed pursuant to a federal 1991 law; these discussions had to be left out of last week’s Wall Street Journal version of the piece (see Dec. 3) for space reasons.