Land Use Appeals Cases

Davis County v. Clearfield City (1988) –Denial of Conditional Use Permit is arbitrary when it is not supported by substantial evidence.

Patterson v. American Fork (2003) –Administrative remedies must be exhausted before a land use decision may be challenged in court.

Bradley v. Payson City (2003) – Standards of review for legislative and administrative decisions.

Foutz v. City of South Jordan (2004)  - When the alleged violation arises directly from a municipal land use decision, the party must comply with LUDMA’s Appeal section, not LUDMA's enforcement section.

Salt Lake City Mission v. Salt Lake City (2008) –Administrative remedies must be exhausted before a land use decision may be challenged in court.

Fox v. Park City (2008) —Appellate review of land use decisions, what makes a decision arbitrary, capricious, or illegal.

Cedar Mountain Environmental v. Tooele County (2009) –Standing requirements under LUDMA are the same as traditional and alternative standing tests.

Pacific West Communities v. City of Grantsville (2009) –Issues and evidence not presented in administrative hearings will not be considered by a court.

City of Grantsville v. Redevelopment Agency of Tooele City (2010) –Establishing standing, or the right to pursue a claim in court.

Pen & Ink, LLC v. Alpine City (2010) –Review of land use decisions by district and appellate courts.

Petersen v. Riverton City (2010) – Discussion of appeals and right to file lawsuit to pursue claims arising from a land use decision.

Gillmor v. Summit County (2010) –Appeal of land use decision may include any challenge to the decision or the law’s validity.

Krejci v. Saratoga Springs (2013) –Zoning ordinances may be subject to initiative and referenda.

Olsen v. Park City (2013) –Appeal period begins to run when all required administrative actions have been completed.

Northern Monticello Alliance v. San Juan County ("NMA I") (2022)  - Third party’s statutory right to appeal land use decision regarding revocation of CUP did not inherently include a due process right to participate in the meeting/hearing producing the decision.

Tooele County v. Erda Community Association (2022) - Each party or "person"--including an association--must exhaust its own administrative remedies before judicial review, regardless of similar appeals made by others, including an association's individual members.

Fuja v. Woodland Hills City (2022) - a city’s inaction to enforce a zoning violation is not itself a separate land use “decision” that can be appealed. 

Northern Monticello Alliance v. San Juan County ("NMA II") (2023) - Failure of a land use authority to make adequate written findings was a "fatal flaw" in subsequent decisions of the appeal authority and district court that purported to uphold the land use authority's decision under a deferential standard of review. 

Bermes v. Summit County (2023) - a technical error in citing the wrong ordinance standards in a written decision's conclusions of law did not require the county to allow additional discussion on the application upon a court's remand to correct the findings and conclusions, because the substance of the correct standards had adequately been discussed in the land use authority's proceedings.