Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Snow, Christensen & Martineau v. Lindberg
Citations: 2009 UT 72; 222 P.3d 1141; 642 Utah Adv. Rep. 39; 2009 Utah LEXIS 197; 2009 WL 3584003Docket: 20080928
Court: Utah Supreme Court; November 3, 2009; Utah; State Supreme Court
The Utah Supreme Court addressed a petition filed under rule 8A of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, concerning a dispute over the district court's supervision of the United Effort Plan Trust. Petitioners sought emergency relief, specifically to stay a hearing set for November 14, 2008, and to halt enforcement of an order requiring the disclosure of communications claimed to be protected by attorney-client privilege. This request was linked to the district court's disqualification of Snow, Christensen, Martineau as counsel for members of the FLDS Church. The court initially denied the stay for the hearing but provisionally stayed the disqualification and disclosure order. As the parties entered settlement negotiations, the court canceled previously requested supplemental pleadings and oral arguments. Following failed negotiations, Petitioners sought to lift the stay and reset proceedings, which faced opposition from the State of Utah, the State of Arizona, and the court-appointed Trustee. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition without prejudice. The ruling clarified that rule 8A provides a means for emergency relief but does not replace standard procedural mechanisms for appellate relief, emphasizing its role in addressing urgent matters more quickly without independently invoking appellate jurisdiction. Limited provisional relief, such as an emergency stay, may be sought before formally invoking appellate jurisdiction, but rule 8A cannot independently initiate that jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction must be properly invoked through a distinct method prior to granting any relief beyond what rule 8A allows. Due to the expedited response deadline creating a significant burden on respondents, a rule 8A petition should not include non-emergency requests for relief. A rule 8A petition cannot be combined with another petition invoking appellate jurisdiction to prevent unnecessary burdens on respondents and appellate courts from addressing non-emergency requests alongside emergencies. In this case, while petitioners referenced rule 19 in an attempt to establish jurisdiction, this was insufficient without a separate invocation of jurisdiction. Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to act further on the rule 8A petition and dismisses it without prejudice. However, the existing stay concerning disqualification and communication disclosure remains for thirty days. To extend this stay, petitioners must submit a new request through proper jurisdictional channels. Additionally, rule 8A petitions may reference non-emergency claims for context but cannot serve as a vehicle for obtaining non-emergency relief. There is no prohibition against combining a rule 8A petition with a motion for a stay under rule 8, provided both requirements are met in the same document. The appellate court has the authority to grant a provisional stay under rule 8A while deciding whether to lift or make the stay permanent, pending the resolution of a properly invoked jurisdiction issue. For instance, if a party typically seeks relief through a rule 5 petition for interlocutory appeal or a rule 19 petition for extraordinary relief, they may face irreparable harm if a lower court order takes effect before they can obtain relief. In such cases, the party should file a rule 8A petition for a provisional stay, followed by a separate rule 5 or rule 19 petition addressing the underlying error, adhering to normal response timelines. This approach may enhance the court's handling of the issues due to the updated case status. Additionally, at least one issue in the rule 8A petition has lost relevance, as the court did not stay a hearing set for November 14, 2008, which was later canceled; thus, the original petition does not pertain to the resumed district court proceedings.