Litigation, Trials & Appeals

Parsons Behle & Latimer attorneys successfully represented Rio Tinto Kennecott in a significant clean air lawsuit that was argued before a federal judge in the United States District Court sitting in Utah. The ruling, which sided with PBL’s arguments in support of Kennecott, came down on June 8, 2016.

A coalition of environmental groups filed a citizen suit against Kennecott under the Clean Air Act seeking to significantly limit mining activity at Utah’s Bingham Canyon Mine.

The team was led by Michael A. Zody, who successfully argued the cross motions for summary judgement in court.  Along with senior litigation attorney Michael L. Larsen, and environmental attorneys Michael A. Tomko and Jacob A. Santini, they laid out key factual and legal arguments before the court.  Federal Judge Robert Shelby determined that the State of Utah had granted Kennecott the necessary permits each time it planned to increase mine production, and did not violate any laws.

Mr. Mark and his co-lead counsel successfully persuaded a jury in federal court to award their clients nearly all of the damages they sought against a Utah county and its contractor for the damage they caused to the client’s mountain property. The jury returned a verdict in Mr. Mark’s client’s favor on all three claims—trespass, negligence, and 5th Amendment Taking—and awarded punitive damages against the contractor. Mr. Mark and Parsons Behle & Latimer also convinced the Court to award their clients attorneys’ fees for the County’s unconstitutional Taking.

Successfully represented the landlord of the Park City ski terrain in terminating the lease of PCMR, bringing about Vail’s arrival in Utah at both Park City and Canyons. Over 2000 acres of the prime ski terrain of Park City Mountain Resort were used under a long term lease with 20 year options. The tenant failed to exercise as required by the lease but argued this should not result in a such a catastrophic loss because of its investment in the property and long term interests. In the midst of the litigation, the landlord made a high-profile deal with Vail Resorts which brought Vail to Utah to operate Canyons and potentially Park City as well.  After rulings favorable to the landlord, the case was resolved through Vail Resort’s acquisition of the rest of PCMR.

Obtained $54 million jury verdict for ski resort company against land owner who obstructed development rights.  After the ski resort company invested many millions in building up Canyons ski resort to enhance its development rights, the owner and landlord of the property attempted to terminate the lease and assume the development rights for itself.  After six years of legal maneuvering and seven weeks of trial, the jury ruled that landlord owed the ski resort company $54 million in damages, plus $6 million in attorney fees and court costs.  This was one of the largest jury verdicts ever awarded in the State.

Obtained a defense jury verdict for a product manufacturer in a double fatality carbon monoxide poisoning cases.  A young girl and her uncle were camping with other friends and family.  They used a propane radiant heater and a propane lantern in their tent to stay warm.  In the morning, they were found dead due to carbon monoxide poisoning.  The family sued the maker of the heater and lantern, claiming that the products were defectively designed and had inadequate warnings.  Mr. Lund and the rest of the defense team persuaded the jury that the products were reasonably safe and the jury ruled in favor of the product manufacturer.

Obtained a defense jury verdict for a product manufacturer in a catastrophic wheel-off case. A 40 year old hospital administrator and his family were driving down the interstate when a set of dual wheels came loose from a tractor-trailer rig and crashed into their windshield.  The man died in front of his wife and children who, after recovering from the owner and operator of the tractor trailer rig, made claims against the maker of the axle nut on the rig, alleging that its defective design was the cause of the accident.  Mr. Lund and the rest of his team convinced the jury to reject those claims and return their verdict in favor of the product manufacturer.

Mr. Mark was an integral member of the trial team that successfully moved for the dismissal of three of the four remaining claims brought by dozens of Utah dairy farms against a local utility claiming more than a billion dollars in compensatory damages. Mr. Mark and the PBL trial team also successfully dismissed the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims.

Acting as lead trial counsel, Mr. Mark successfully persuaded a state court to award his client a significant recovery in a dispute over the proper interpretation of a commercial lease. The court awarded Mr. Mark’s client a substantial judgment, and the award included the client’s costs and a significant portion of the client’s attorneys’ fees.

The Supreme Court of Virginia held that (1) the Virginia Circuit Court did not err by approving the town historic board’s denial of certificate of appropriateness; (2) that the Town of Vienna’s historic district ordinance was not invalid; and (3) that the Town of Vienna’s historic district ordinance was not unconstitutional as applied.

The Virginia Circuit Court held that (1) the Town of Vienna (the “Town”)’s Motion to Quash the Subpoenas issued for members of the Vienna Town Council and the Windover Heights Historic District’s Board of Review was granted based upon the Town’s invocation of legislative privilege granted by the United States Constitution Article I, Section 6, and the Virginia Constitution; (2) that any challenge to the enactment of an ordinance establishing a historic district could not be reviewed by the court because Virginia’s historic district enabling statute limited such judicial review to whether the decision was “arbitrary and constitutes an abuse of discretion” or is “contrary to law.”; (3) that the Town demonstrated both a legal and factual basis to conclude the historic district was properly created pursuant to authority delegated to the Town by the Virginia General Assembly; (4) that a local ordinance could not override the dictates of a state statute, and therefore Virginia code precluded an attack upon the validity of the historic district ordinance based upon alleged non-compliance with Town Code; (5) that the historic district ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague as applied, nor unconstitutionally vague on its face; (6) that denial of certain applications for certificates of appropriateness was not arbitrary or capricious.

Read Full Verdict