Willis William Ritter

The plaintiffs sued Western Steel Company for patent infringement under federal law and for breach of a 1968 license and settlement agreement arising from a prior patent dispute over a front-end discharging transit concrete mixer. The court held that it had pendent jurisdiction over the related state-law claims because the federal patent claim was substantial and had not been dismissed. It granted partial summary judgment on liability, finding that the defendant breached the license by selling engineering drawings and plans to a competitor rather than returning them to the plaintiffs as required. The court awarded compensatory damages for lost profits, damages for conversion of trade secrets, and punitive damages after determining the breach was willful and malicious.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a class action by minority public stockholders of International Service Industries, Inc. against corporate insiders and others, challenging a 1974 merger in which the company was absorbed into a new entity, Body Contour, Inc. Insiders received stock in the surviving company while public shareholders were offered only cash at 18 cents per share. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that the merger constituted a fraudulent "freeze-out" scheme under SEC Rule 10b-5 and a breach of fiduciary duties. It reasoned that the transaction lacked any legitimate corporate purpose, as evidenced by the defendants' own proxy statements, and relied on precedents such as Bryan v. Brock & Blevins Co. and Pepper v. Litton to conclude that the insiders' self-dealing violated federal securities law and corporate obligations. The court voided the merger and reserved jurisdiction over damages and class procedures.

business & regulatory

The case involved three pregnant women receiving Medicaid benefits in Utah who sought state-funded abortions that their physicians deemed medically appropriate, but which the state refused to cover unless they qualified as 'therapeutic' (necessary to save the mother's life or prevent serious physical impairment). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant's, issuing an injunction against the state's requirements for prior approval and therapeutic purpose limitations on abortion payments. The core reasoning was that federal Medicaid statutes under 42 U.S.C. § 1396 require participating states to provide necessary inpatient hospital and physician services without such distinctions, that the plaintiffs had a constitutionally protected right to abortion, and that discriminating between therapeutic and non-therapeutic abortions violated equal protection principles.

abortionhealthcarecivil rightsfederal power

The case concerns three plaintiffs—two conservation organizations and a wilderness guide—who filed a mandamus action under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to compel the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Secretary of the Interior to prevent Glen Canyon Dam reservoir waters from entering Rainbow Bridge National Monument and to implement protective measures required by the Colorado River Storage Act. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The court examined Sections 1 and 3 of the Act, which direct the Secretary to take adequate protective measures to preclude impairment of the Monument and state Congress's intention that no dam or reservoir be located within any national park or monument, while noting that Congress had not appropriated funds for protective works.

environmentfederal power

The case Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corporation involved a challenge to a Ten Commandments monument placed on the publicly owned grounds of a courthouse, donated by the private Eagles organization but installed, illuminated, and maintained at taxpayer expense near the entrance to the Hall of Justice. The court held that the display was unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause. Its reasoning focused on the monument's explicitly religious text from the Bible, its Christian and Jewish symbols, its permanent placement in a prominent public location funded by the government, and its stated purpose of providing religious guidance to youth and adults.

religious libertycivil rights

The case involved a dispute between Trans-American Collections, Inc. (TAC), a collection service company, and its former regional manager Eugene Simpson, sales manager Gale Palmer, and others who formed a competing company, Continental Account Servicing House, Inc. (CASH). TAC terminated its sales agency contract with Simpson for nonperformance and disloyalty, after which Simpson and associates began competing directly with TAC in violation of a non-compete covenant in the contract. The court held that TAC properly terminated the contract due to Simpson's breaches of its terms, his duty of loyalty as an agent, and anticipatory repudiation, and that the non-compete covenant was enforceable under Colorado law as the place of contracting. It awarded TAC damages for lost profits and harm to goodwill from the breach and unfair competition, plus punitive damages against Simpson and CASH for willful conduct, and issued an injunction against further unfair competition.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff who alleged she was terminated by her employer, American Oil Company, after refusing to engage in racial discrimination against a job applicant, and she sought damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, claiming the plaintiff failed to timely commence state administrative proceedings and to file the federal suit within ninety days of receiving her EEOC right-to-sue notice. The court denied the motion, ruling that the plaintiff's oral complaint to the Utah Anti-Discrimination Division within days of her termination was sufficient to commence state proceedings under both Utah law and the federal statute's deferral requirements. It further held that the subsequent filing of a written complaint and the timing of the EEOC process satisfied the prerequisites for federal jurisdiction, allowing the action to proceed.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case arose from a November 1969 plane crash at Bryce Canyon Airport in Utah, where a Cessna 206 carrying pilot Don C. Kelley and passengers Joe W. Murray and John Richard Droubay attempted to land at night but crashed after the runway lights remained off. The plaintiffs, survivors of the passengers, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging negligence by the FAA Flight Service Station operator in failing to activate the lights despite the plane's visible circling, blinking lights, and customary signaling. The court found the FAA negligent for not operating the lights as required by its manual and standard practice, determining this caused the crash, and awarded damages totaling over $400,000 to the Murray and Droubay plaintiffs after offsets for a prior settlement with the pilot's estate. The reasoning centered on findings that the operator could have seen or been alerted to the aircraft's maneuvers but did not respond promptly, breaching the duty to provide safe airport operations.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case consolidated multiple actions alleging that Texas Gulf Sulphur Company and its officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by failing to disclose material information about a significant mineral discovery in Ontario and by issuing a misleading press release about the find. Plaintiffs, who had sold or refrained from buying TGS stock, sought damages based on these nondisclosures and statements. The court first addressed procedural matters, confirming jurisdiction under federal question and diversity statutes and upholding venue in Utah due to interstate transmissions of the press release and the company's business activities there. On the merits, the opinion examined the facts of the secret drilling results, secrecy measures taken by the company, and the timing of stock transactions by insiders, applying standards for materiality and duty to disclose under the securities laws.

business & regulatory

The case concerned a challenge to SJR3, a 1965 resolution by Utah's legislature applying to Congress under Article V to call a constitutional convention on legislative reapportionment not based solely on population. The petitioner, a Utah legislator, sought to intervene in prior litigation to declare the resolution invalid because it was passed by a legislature already ruled unconstitutionally apportioned in two earlier federal court decisions for diluting urban votes in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The court held that SJR3 was invalid and of no effect as an Article V application, and ordered the Utah Secretary of State to notify Congress of the invalidity and request return of the resolution. The reasoning rested on the prior findings that the 1965 legislature had grossly diluted urban voting power, that the court had twice allowed time for correction without action, and that the legislature lacked authority to take such a step while unconstitutionally constituted.

electionscivil rightsfederal power

This case under the Federal Tort Claims Act arose from a 1965 head-on collision on a Utah highway in which Airman First Class Williams, driving his personal vehicle, crossed double yellow no-passing lines at an intersection to pass a stopped car and struck the vehicle driven by Norman Day, killing Day and seriously injuring three passengers. The plaintiffs (Day's widow and the injured passengers) sued the United States, alleging Williams was negligent and acting within the scope of his employment so that the government was vicariously liable. The court found Williams negligent based on eyewitness testimony, physical evidence of brake marks, and his own prior statements admitting he attempted to pass to avoid a rear-end collision, while Day had tried to evade the impact. The opinion then addressed damages, applying Utah wrongful-death precedents to award compensation for pecuniary losses, loss of companionship, and projected earnings, with present-worth calculations.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case involves a dispute between plaintiff Glenn G. Nielsen and defendant The American Oil Company over the exclusive right to use the trade name “American Oil Company” for marketing petroleum products in Cache County, Utah. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, awarding it the exclusive right to use the name and related trademarks “American” and “Amoco” and enjoining the plaintiff from further use. The core reasoning rests on the defendant’s long prior use of the name and marks since 1910, federal registrations under the Lanham Act that provided constructive notice to the plaintiff, Utah state trademark statutes granting exclusive intrastate rights, and common-law protection in the defendant’s normal expansion territory, all of which rendered the plaintiff’s later adoption and use an infringement.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerned a bankrupt debtor seeking an injunction in federal bankruptcy court to stop a loan company from enforcing a state court default judgment on a promissory note that had been discharged in bankruptcy. The court granted the permanent injunction against the creditor and its garnishment efforts. It reasoned that the state court action was founded on the discharged note itself rather than an independent tort claim for fraud, that the creditor had notice of the bankruptcy but chose to bypass it, and that the bankruptcy court possesses exclusive jurisdiction to enforce its adjudication and discharge orders under the Bankruptcy Act. The opinion distinguished contrary precedents involving state tort judgments and stressed the federal court's authority to prevent circumvention of bankruptcy proceedings.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a challenge by a poultry cooperative, meatpacking companies, and the Secretary of Agriculture to an Interstate Commerce Commission order that approved railroad tariffs setting damage claim tolerances for shipments of shell eggs at 3 percent for eggs packed at the rail origin point and 5 percent for those packed elsewhere. The plaintiffs sought to set aside the order as unlawful under the Interstate Commerce Act, while the United States initially confessed error in support of the challenge. The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the ICC order but emphasized that the Attorney General lacked authority to dispose of the case by confessing error on behalf of other government departments. The core reasoning was that the ICC holds exclusive statutory authority to administer the Interstate Commerce Act and determine reasonable regulations for carriers, including claim tolerances, independent of other agencies' positions.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In Ex Parte Sullivan, two petitioners facing execution in Utah filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging that their state murder convictions violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, raising several new claims not previously presented in state proceedings. The state moved to dismiss on grounds that the petitioners had failed to exhaust available state remedies, including by presenting all claims to the Utah Supreme Court and seeking certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court after a summary denial of their state habeas petition. The court held that exhaustion was required under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and precedents such as Ex parte Hawk and Darr v. Burford, concluding that state corrective processes remained available. It therefore retained jurisdiction over the case without granting or denying the writ on the merits and continued the stay of execution to allow further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a suit by Aboitiz & Co. to recover on promissory notes signed by defendant Albert Price, a U.S. bank examiner interned by Japanese forces in the Philippines from 1942 to 1945. While held at camps including Santo Tomas, Price borrowed Japanese military scrip through an intermediary to purchase food and bribe guards for survival necessities, executing the notes in exchange. The court held the notes enforceable, reasoning that contracts made by internees under enemy occupation for essential needs are valid under principles of the law of occupation and do not violate public policy, even when involving occupation currency and executed through third parties. Key factors included the lack of duress on the lender and the humanitarian purpose of the funds.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a federal antitrust suit seeking treble damages and equitable relief under the Sherman and Clayton Acts against motion picture companies for alleged violations related to theater ownership and operations in Utah. The court addressed the applicable statute of limitations, as no federal limitations period governed such civil actions. It held that Utah's one-year limit for liabilities created by statutes of a 'foreign state' did not apply, because federal antitrust laws are not statutes of a foreign state under the Utah provision. The court further ruled that the one-year limit for actions on a statute for a penalty or forfeiture did not cover treble-damage claims, which it distinguished from traditional informer actions to enforce criminal laws.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In North v. United States, a landowner sued the federal government after construction of a dam and reservoir in Provo Canyon, Utah, claiming that the project raised underground water levels on his property, causing flooding in his cellar and cesspool. The plaintiff sought compensation under the Fifth Amendment for an alleged taking of property and recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court ruled for the defendant, holding that no compensable taking occurred because government waters did not directly and permanently invade the plaintiff's land. It further concluded that any harm was consequential rather than a direct invasion and that the Tort Claims Act claim was barred by the discretionary functions exception, as the project involved high-level governmental policy decisions.

propertyfederal powertorts & liability

The case involved an assignee attempting to register a money judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 while an appeal of the judgment was pending in the Ninth Circuit. The judgment debtors petitioned to strike the registration and quash execution, arguing the judgment was not yet final. The court denied the assignee's motion to dismiss the petition and ordered the registration stricken, holding that § 1963 permits registration only after a judgment becomes final by appeal or expiration of the appeal period. The core reasoning was that the statutory language requires the appeal to be resolved before registration, as the ordinary meaning of finality precludes treating a pending appeal as final, and allowing registration would create conflicts and burdens across districts during ongoing appeals.

procedure