Utahns for Better Dental Health-Davis, Inc. v. Davis County Clerk
175 P.3d 1036, 2007 UT 97 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party that successfully litigates to vindicate a strong and societally important public policy, such as protecting the integrity of the constitutional initiative process, is entitled to an award of attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine, even if no monetary benefit is created.
Facts:
- In the November 2000 general election, Davis County voters approved a measure to add fluoride to the public water supply.
- Subsequently, a group of citizens opposed to fluoridation circulated a petition to place the identical opinion question on the ballot again for the 2002 general election.
- The Davis County Clerk received the petition, which he treated as an initiative petition.
- After the Davis County Commission took no action on the petition, the Davis County Clerk announced his intention to place the revote question on the 2002 general election ballot.
Procedural Posture:
- Utahns For Better Dental Health-Davis, Inc. (UFBDH) sued the Davis County Clerk and Davis County Commission in a state district court (trial court) for declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The Davis County Commission was dismissed from the suit.
- The district court granted the injunction in favor of UFBDH, preventing the fluoridation question from appearing on the ballot.
- UFBDH then filed a motion for attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine, which the district court denied.
- UFBDH appealed the denial of fees to the Utah Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court for more adequate findings to support its decision.
- On remand, the district court again denied UFBDH's motion for attorney fees.
- UFBDH, as appellant, then appealed this second denial to the Utah Supreme Court (highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party that successfully sues to block an unconstitutional initiative from a ballot, thereby vindicating the public's interest in the integrity of the election process, qualify for attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Durham, Chief Justice
Yes, a party that successfully blocks an unconstitutional initiative qualifies for attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine. This doctrine allows for an equitable award of fees when a lawsuit vindicates a strong or societally important public policy and the litigation costs transcend the plaintiff's individual pecuniary interest. The court established that appellate review for such cases is de novo, not abuse of discretion, to ensure uniformity in applying the doctrine. It reasoned that protecting the 'sacrosanct and fundamental right' of direct legislation through the initiative process is a strong public policy. The court explicitly rejected the lower court's reasoning that a monetary benefit is required, holding that blocking an unconstitutional petition from the ballot is an 'actual and concrete benefit' to the public, thus satisfying the standard for an 'extraordinary case' under Stewart v. Utah Pub. Serv. Comm’n.
Dissenting - Wilkins, Associate Chief Justice
No, attorney fees should not be awarded in this case. The private attorney general doctrine should be reserved for truly extraordinary occasions where a citizen challenges corrupt or wrongful government acts for altruistic reasons and at great personal financial sacrifice. This case involved a corporate challenge to a flawed petition, not a fight against government corruption. The majority's holding creates an unreasonable burden on taxpayers by encouraging litigation over every flawed initiative petition, with the public treasury footing the bill. It improperly substitutes the court's judgment on the importance of an issue for the voters' judgment on its merits.
Concurring - Nehring, Justice
Yes, attorney fees should be awarded, and the majority's adoption of de novo review is correct. A nondeferential standard of review is appropriate for questions that require a court to measure the importance of a public policy. This is consistent with Utah's employment termination jurisprudence, where courts already apply a de novo standard to determine if a firing violates a 'substantial and important' public policy. There is no principled reason to defer to a trial court's assessment of public policy importance in private attorney general cases while declining to do so in wrongful discharge cases.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and strengthens the private attorney general doctrine in Utah. By removing the perceived requirement of a monetary benefit, the court broadened the doctrine's applicability to cases involving the protection of fundamental civic processes and constitutional rights. More importantly, it established de novo review as the standard for these cases, empowering appellate courts to ensure consistent application of the doctrine and prevent arbitrary denials at the trial level. This decision encourages public interest litigation by making attorney fee awards more predictable and attainable for parties who successfully defend non-pecuniary but societally important public policies.
Unlock the full brief for Utahns for Better Dental Health-Davis, Inc. v. Davis County Clerk