Holdings by issue
The same decisions as the tracker, organized by the question rather than by the case. Every answer links to the case file it comes from.
Anti-SLAPP · UPEPA
What counts as a matter of public concern?
Construed broadly enough to reach criticism alleging that a person harmed others. The district court had held that a parent’s statements at a school board meeting were not on a matter of public concern; the Supreme Court disagreed.
Does public comment qualify if the topic is not being deliberated?
The district court reasoned that statements made during a public comment period, on concerns not under consideration at the meeting, fell outside the act. That reasoning did not survive review.
How is the prima facie determination reviewed?
For correctness, with facts and reasonable inferences viewed most favorably to the nonmovant.
Does the act reach conduct alleged to be criminal?
A district court held UPEPA does not protect criminal conduct such as stalking, true threats of violence, or targeted harassment, reasoning that the alleged conduct, if proven, would not be protected activity. Note the tension: Mackey asks whether the claim is asserted against the movant for protected activity, not whether the alleged conduct turns out to be protected.
Can a motion succeed as to some claims and not others?
Yes. Partial relief is a normal outcome. Two claims were dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case and the remainder were remanded.
How far does a fee award reach?
Only to work reasonably necessary to prosecute the special motion, not the entire litigation. An award of roughly $394,000 covering essentially all work in the case was reversed.
Vexatious requester
Can an agency petition against several requesters at once?
No. Section 209 uses singular terminology throughout and requires an individualized, fact-specific showing as to each respondent. The definition of “person” as a combination acting in concert does not carry into the section.
Office of the Lieutenant Governor v. Clara, Maragani, Clawson and Lyman
Is request volume by itself enough?
No, in both directions. A petition succeeded on 21 requests where the finding rested on threatening communications, and failed on more than 200.
Tooele City v. Kevin SullivanUniversity of Utah v. Ian Cooperstein
Do requests made before the statute took effect count?
No. Section 209 took effect May 3, 2023, and requests predating enactment cannot be weighed retroactively. That alone defeated one petition.
How much weight do allegations of hostile communications carry?
They need corroboration. One decision declined to credit an agency’s evidence of hostile communications because it rested on uncorroborated testimony, while documented threats carried a petition that the request count could not.
Office of the Utah State Treasurer v. Brady EamesTooele City v. Kevin Sullivan
Does the purpose behind the requests matter?
Yes. Requests found to have an articulated public purpose, evidenced by the audits and statutory reforms they prompted, could not be deemed an abuse of the right of access.
Office of the Lieutenant Governor v. Clara, Maragani, Clawson and Lyman
What shortens an order?
Public-interest value in some requests, good-faith participation, letters of support, and the absence of any prior petition. A request for the statutory maximum was cut to six months on a record of 435 requests; another was cut from twelve months to seven.
Utah County v. Mark AllenOffice of the Utah State Treasurer v. Brady Eames
What happens if the respondent does not appear?
The decisionmaker noted it had no choice but to accept the agency’s evidence at face value. Nothing in the statute delays a decision because a respondent stays silent.
Something missing or stated too broadly? This page is only as good as the decisions we have found. Send them to [email protected].