As we approach our centennial year, this is an exciting time for you to join us.  The links below will introduce you to a small sampling for our recent awards, programs, and accomplishments.

Please let us know if you have like to discuss our school in more detail or if you have additional questions.

Dean’s Building Update: Key Step Forward  

Recent awards, programs, and accomplishments at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law:

Download the executive summary of the program for the new building

Launching new centers at the S.J. Quinney College of Law:

Global Justice – Vision and Mission

Law and Health Science – Vision and Mission

Innovation in Legal Education – Vision and Mission

Criminal Justice Academy – Vision and Mission

U Wins First Place in ABA Video Competition for Counter-Terrorism Simulation Synopsis

Watch the award-winning video

College of Law Job Market Report

Salt Lake City Ranked Number 5 on List of Best Cities for the Next Decade by Kiplinger.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

In 2010, after over six years of litigation, a case involving a Wyoming county’s attempted termination of a perpetual conservation easement settled, with the conservation easement remaining in full force and effect on the burdened land.

Background

In 1993, Paul and Linda Lowham donated a conservation easement as a tax-deductible charitable gift to the Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County, Wyoming, for the purpose of preserving and protecting in perpetuity the conservation values of a 1,043-acre ranch located in the county. The Lowhams claimed a large federal charitable income tax deduction based on the estimated value of the easement. The Board later transferred the easement to the Scenic Preserve Trust, a § 501(c)(3) organization created and governed by the Board.

In 1999, the Lowhams sold the land, subject to the perpetual easement, to the Dowds. The Dowds were aware they were purchasing the land subject to a perpetual conservation easement. The Dowds were also aware that a third party owns the minerals underlying the land and, as is common in the west, the third party has the right to reasonable access to the surface of the land to extract its minerals. When an energy company later prepared to drill for coalbed methane on the land, the Dowds requested that the Board terminate the conservation easement. The Board passed a resolution in which it agreed to do so, and then executed a quitclaim deed transferring the conservation easement to the Dowds for the purpose of terminating the easement. The Board received no compensation for the termination of the easement, and no determination was made that the mineral development had or would render the continued protection of the land’s conservation values impossible or impracticable.

In 2002, a resident of the county, Hicks, filed suit alleging, inter alia, that the Board breached its fiduciary duties to both the easement donor and the public by agreeing to terminate the conservation easement without court approval obtained in a cy pres proceeding. Hicks also argued that the minimal drilling that had occurred on the property had not rendered continued protection of land’s conservation values impossible or impractical. As it turned out, the ranch was not a good place for coalbed methane development, and the impact of the limited drilling on the conservation values of the land was minimal. The Wyoming Attorney General was notified of this case and given the opportunity to intervene, but declined to become involved, explaining that “the interests of the public, as the beneficiaries of the conservation easement,” were already being represented by the litigants.

In 2007, the Wyoming Supreme Court dismissed Hicks’s case on the ground that Hicks did not have standing to sue. The court also, however, invited the Wyoming Attorney General, as supervisor of charitable trusts in the state of Wyoming, to reassess his position with regard to the case. See Hicks v. Dowd, 157 P.3d 914 (Wyo. 2007). In virtually all states, the state attorney general is responsible for overseeing the administration of charitable assets in the state. The attorney general protects the interests of the public in such assets, as well as the interests of donors in ensuring that their charitable gifts are used for the purposes they designated.

In the summer of 2008, the Wyoming Attorney General accepted the Wyoming Supreme Court’s invitation and filed suit against the Board and the Dowds. Like Hicks, the Wyoming Attorney General argued that the Board had violated its fiduciary duties by agreeing to terminate the conservation easement without court approval obtained in a cy pres proceeding. The Attorney General requested that the Board’s attempted termination of the conservation easement be declared null and void. The Attorney General and some conservation organizations (including The Nature Conservancy) were also concerned that the Board’s actions, if upheld, could render conservation easements in Wyoming nondeductible. Federal tax law requires that the conservation purpose of a tax-deductible conservation easement be “protected in perpetuity.” I.R.C. § 170(h)(5)(A). For their part, the Dowds argued that “[t]here is nothing special about a conservation easement when it comes to termination,” and that conservation easements can be modified or terminated by simple agreement of the then owner of the land and the government or nonprofit holder of the easement.

Select documents filed by the Wyoming Attorney General in the litigation are set forth below:

Wyoming Attorney General’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment: Part 1

Wyoming Attorney General’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment: Part 2

Wyoming Attorney General’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment: Appendices

Wyoming Attorney General’s Reply to Defendant Dowd’s Motion to Dismiss

Wyoming Attorney General’s Reply to Defendant Dowd’s Response to Attorney General’s Motion for Summary Judgment

The Wyoming Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, which is the nation’s largest land trust and operates in all fifty states, filed a Motion to Intervene or Alternatively a Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae in support of the Wyoming Attorney General’s position.

The Jackson Hole Land Trust and the Wyoming Stock Growers Agricultural Land Trust also filed Motions to Intervene in the case. While they objected to the termination of the conservation easement, they also objected to the Wyoming Attorney General’s position, arguing, like the Dowds, that conservation easements can be modified or terminated “in the same manner as other easements” (i.e., by mere agreement of the parties thereto). For a critique of their position, see Salzburg v. Dowd: Another Look, 33 Wyo. Law. 50 (2010).

The District Court denied all Motions to Intervene.

Settlement

While the Motions for Summary Judgment in Salzburg v. Dowd were pending, the parties to the case agreed to settle. In February of 2010, the District Court Judge signed a Stipulated Judgment approving the settlement. The Judgment declares that:

(i) the resolution passed by the Board was of no legal effect insofar as it purported to authorize the Board to transfer the conservation easement to the Dowds;

(ii) the Board’s quitclaim deed purporting to transfer the conservation easement to the Dowds was null and void and of no effect; and

(iii) the original deed of conservation easement remains in full force and effect with minor amendments set forth in the Judgment.

The settlement represented a victory for the Wyoming Attorney General as well as the public, which is investing heavily in what are supposed to be permanent conservation easements. The settlement also represented a victory for conservation easement donors, who are willing to significantly reduce the value of their land in large part because of a strong personal connection to—and the promise of permanent protection of—that land.

For additional articles discussing the case, see:

Nancy A. McLaughlin & W. William Weeks, Hicks v. Dowd, Conservation Easements, and the Charitable Trust Doctrine: Setting the Record Straight, 10 Wyo. L. Rev. 73 (2010)

Nancy A. McLaughlin & W. William Weeks, In Defense of Conservation Easements: A Response to The End of Perpetuity, co-authored with W. William Weeks, 9 Wyo. L. Rev. 1 (2009)

Nancy A. McLaughlin, Could Coalbed Methane be the Death of Conservation Easements?, 29 Wyo. Law. 18 (2006)

Documents

Law For America Outline
This document outlines the vision for the Law For America Initiative at the S.J. Quinney College of Law

Law For America Report
This document gives more analysis and insight into key issues as it relates to the Law For America Initiative

About JTR

In our highly interconnected and globalized world research on justice issues may take place anywhere. Thus, from a base of operations in Salt Lake City, Utah this student run think tank undertakes research projects on global issues of justice reform and international equality throughout the world. The members of the think tank are second and third year law students whose work is supervised by faculty at the University of Utah College of Law.

Please take a few moments to browse through our pages to see what we are currently working on. There will shortly be a research portal dedicated to Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL).Extra Muros journal of international law is the publishing arm of the think tank. You can find it at /academic/extra-muros/

Top of page ↑

Acknowledgements

The staff of Global Justice through Research and Extra Muros would like to thank several people who were instrumental in getting the project off the ground, and without whom neither project would exist. To:

Dean Hiram Chodosh for his unwavering support and sweeping vision. He inspired us to be better than we thought we could be.

Professor Tony Anghie who gave inspiration to us before we had anything and taught all of us what international law is (or is not). He advised us on the how, the why, and especially the when of getting things rolling.

Professor Michael Scharf who gave the needed encouragement and enthusiasm for this project when I thought it wouldn’t go ahead.

Derek Long who designed the original site. His energy, reliability, and eye for minutiae saved us that first year.

To everyone who participated without credit or acknowledgement for two years because they wanted to create something. And to the administration, both current and former for all of your support.

We the staff of 2006-2007 say, “Thank you.”

Sincerely,
Aurelio David Borgia
Founding Director, Global Justice through Research
Founding Editor-in-Chief, Extra Muros

Top of page ↑

Past Boards

Masthead 2007-2008

Editor-in-Chief: Rich Roberts
Managing Editor: Matthew Kober
Articles Editor: Peter Lattin
Citation Editor: Tasha Williams
Text Editor: Benjamin Whisenant
Executive Editor: Emily Pettit

Senior Staff Editors:

Jennifer Jones
Mark LaRocco
Jay Porter
Virginia Tomova
Guy Tshiteya
Brooke Wilkinson

Junior Staff Editors:

Einar Bjarnson
Sandra Hartman
Matthew Holmes
Carolyn Morrow
Joshua Rupp
Mary Silverzweig
Allison Smith
Brady Stuart
Linh Tran
Artemis Vamianakis
Philip Wormdahl
Daniel Young

Masthead 2006-2007

Editor-in-Chief: Aurelio David Borgia
Managing Editor: Stanford Darger
Articles Editor: Peter Gessel
Citation Editor: Ann Song
Executive Editor: David Billings
Executive Editor: Justin Atkinson

Senior Staff Editors:

William Fontenot
Kenyon Kinikini
Jarrat Macanas
Jay Porter
Victoria Ryder
Stephanie Stoddard
Mark Waldron
Gabriel White

Junior Staff Editors:

Jennifer Jones
Matthew Kober
Mark LaRocco
Peter Lattin
Alexander Pearson
Emily Pettit
Richard Roberts
Virginia Tomova
Guy Tshiteya
Ben Whisenant
Brooke Wilkinson
Tasha Williams

Masthead 2005-2006

Editor-in-Chief: Aurelio David Borgia
Managing Editor: Matthew Selander
Citation Editor: William Wilder Miller
Text Editor: Derek Long
Articles Editor: David Billings
Articles Editor: Justin Atkinson
Articles Editor: Stanford Darger

Staff Editors:

Elizabeth Crane
William Fontenot
Peter Gessel
Kenyon Kinikini
Jarrat Macanas
Victoria Ryder
Serena Serassio
Ann Song
Joseph Su
Mark Waldron
Gabriel White

Top of page ↑

From time to time, the Lawyer Competition Program and its advisory committee may choose to enter teams in extramural competitions other than, or in addition to, those listed below, with notice to be provided to students in advance. If you have any questions about a particular competition, please feel free to contact the faculty advisor for the competition in which you are interested.

I. Appellate Competitions

A. Intramural:

Traynor Moot Court Competition
One Credit, Pass-Fail, Spring Semester
Faculty Advisor: Amy Wildermuth

Second- and third-year students are eligible to enroll in the Traynor Moot Court Competition, an intramural competition in which students, in teams of two, write an appellate brief and participate in at least two rounds of oral argument. The problem is distributed in mid-January and students are given approximately one month to complete their brief. The preliminary oral argument rounds, judged by local practitioners and judges, will be held the morning of Saturday, February 27th, 2010. The top eight teams who advance to the elimination rounds will argue in two rounds on the morning of Saturday, March 6th, 2010. The competition culminates in an argument between the top two teams held in late March or early April before a panel of three prominent judges, including the Distinguished Jurist-in-Residence. The top six second-year students in the Traynor Moot Court Competition are invited to represent the law school in the National Moot Court (NMC) Competition the following year. The third-year students serving on the NMC team also assist with problem drafting, brief grading, and organizing the oral argument rounds of Traynor.

B. Extramural:

National Moot Court
One Credit, Pass-Fail, Fall Semester
One Credit, Pass-Fail, Spring Semester
Faculty Advisor/Contact Person: Daniel Medwed

As indicated above, the top six student performers after the completion of Traynor in the spring (the four finalists and two other students based on scores) are asked to join the National Moot Court (NMC) team for the following year’s competition. The NMC students, in turn, are divided into two teams of three. Each team usually receives the moot court problem in September, and submits a completed brief by mid-October. The students then prepare for oral arguments in the regional round of the competition, slated for early to mid-November. Eight schools (16 teams) participate in the regional round, and the top two teams advance to the final round of the competition, which takes place in January or February in New York City . For their work in the fall, each student receives one credit, and is eligible for an additional credit upon advancement to the national round. Members of the NMC team also receive one credit for their role in the Traynor Competition in the spring semester.

Pace Environmental Law Competition

One Credit, Pass-Fail, Spring Semester
Faculty Advisor/Contact Person: Lincoln Davies

For many years, the law school has entered a team in the Pace Environmental Law Competition. Students are selected based on a combination of (a) demonstrated interest, commitment, and ability in the area of environmental law and (b) previous moot court experience, such as participation in Traynor. Please note that second and third year students are eligible for participation, although preference will be given to third years. Moreover, participation in Traynor is not a prerequisite, but may be a factor in the selection process.

Jessup International Law Competition

One Credit, Pass-Fail, Spring Semester
Faculty Advisor/Contact Person: Chris Whytock

Students are selected based on a combination of (a) demonstrated interest, commitment, and ability in the area of international law and (b) previous moot court experience, such as participation in Traynor. Please note that both second and third year students are eligible for participation, although preference will be given to third-years. Moreover, participation in Traynor is not a prerequisite, but may be a factor in the selection process.

Giles Sutherland Rich Patent Law Competition

One Credit, Pass-Fail, Spring Semester
Faculty Advisor/Contact Person: Hillary Greene

A consortium of Utah law firms sponsors our participation in a national patent law competition called Giles Sutherland Rich Competition. Any interested second and third year students may participate. This competition is supervised by the faculty adviser in conjunction with local patent attorneys and our Student Intellectual Property Association (SIPLA).

II. Extramural Trial Competition:

National Trial Advocacy Team

One Credit, Pass-Fail, Fall Semester
Faculty Advisor: Richard McKelvie
Contact Person: Suzanne Faddis

Student participation in the National Trial Advocacy extramural competition stems from their performance in the trial advocacy course, which many students take in the spring of their second year and which is taught by Jim Holbrook, Greg Skordas, and a handful of adjuncts. Four second year students from the course are invited to join the national team in the fall of their third year; they are chosen from among the students who had the highest grades in the previous spring semester, and who also receive favorable recommendations from their small group adjunct professors.

III. Extramural Lawyering Skills

Negotiation Competition

One Credit, Pass-Fail, Fall Semester
Faculty Advisor: Linda Smith
Contact Person: Kay Shelton

The SJQ sends two teams of two students each to the Negotiation Competition in the fall semester. Professors Linda Smith and Jim Holbrook identify candidates from those who have taken the lawyering skills and advanced negotiation/mediation courses and also a relevant clinic. They look at grades, interest, and demonstrated competence in the skills needed in the respective competitions; in addition, student interest in/commitment to ADR skills and career paths are also factors. Diversity is considered whenever possible, and students who have been in another interscholastic competition are not selected.

Mediation Competition

One Credit, Pass-Fail, Spring Semester
Faculty Advisor: Linda Smith
Contact Person: Kay Shelton

The SJQ fields two teams of two students each to the Mediation Advocacy Competition in the spring semester, and utilizes precisely the same criteria described above with respect to the Negotiation Competition.

Setting it Straight: Thirtieth Anniversary Gathering

This Time Around… We Need to Address the Systemic Flaws – 2011 Utah Green Bag Presentation [.PPT]

In the Wake of the Snail Darter: An Environmental Law Paradigm and its Consequences [.DOC]