Salt Lake City motion in Utah

2022We “review[] a 20190847-CA 17 2022 UT App 73 Airstar Corp. v. Keystone Aviation decision on a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo, giving no deference to the district court’s analysis.” Latham v. Office of Recovery Services, 2019 UT 51, ¶ 17 , 448 P.3d 1241 . ¶48 Second, Airstar argues that the court “erred in ruling that Airstar impliedly waived its attornment rights as a third- party beneficiary under the 1992 [FBO] Agreement by entering into the 2012 Hangar 16 Sublease.” (Quotation simplified.) This ruling was part of the court’s order granting Keystone’s motion for judgment on the

2022We “review[] a 20190847-CA 17 2022 UT App 73 Airstar Corp. v. Keystone Aviation decision on a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo, giving no deference to the district court’s analysis.” Latham v. Office of Recovery Services, 2019 UT 51, ¶ 17 , 448 P.3d 1241 . ¶48 Second, Airstar argues that the court “erred in ruling that Airstar impliedly waived its attornment rights as a third- party beneficiary under the 1992 [FBO] Agreement by entering into the 2012 Hangar 16 Sublease.” (Quotation simplified.) This ruling was part of the court’s order granting Keystone’s motion for judgment on the

2020Standard of Review ¶8 “On certiorari, we review the court of appeals’ decision for correctness, focusing on whether that court correctly reviewed the trial court’s decision under the appropriate standard of review.”7 The district court’s decision to grant Salt Lake City’s motion to dismiss “is a question of law,” which the court of appeals reviewed “for correctness.”8 Analysis ¶9 Article XI, section 6 of the Utah Constitution provides that “[n]o municipal corporation, shall directly or indirectly, lease, sell, alien or dispose of any waterworks, water rights, or sources of water supply now, or

2020Standard of Review ¶8 “On certiorari, we review the court of appeals’ decision for correctness, focusing on whether that court correctly reviewed the trial court’s decision under the appropriate standard of review.”7 The district court’s decision to grant Salt Lake City’s motion to dismiss “is a question of law,” which the court of appeals reviewed “for correctness.”8 Analysis ¶9 Article XI, section 6 of the Utah Constitution provides that “[n]o municipal corporation, shall directly or indirectly, lease, sell, alien or dispose of any waterworks, water rights, or sources of water supply now, or

2020Att’y, 2019 UT 50, ¶ 9 , 448 P.3d 1236 (citation omitted). 8 Id. (citation omitted). 4 Cite as: 2020 UT 29 Opinion of the Court corporation, shall be preserved, maintained and operated by it for supplying its inhabitants with water at reasonable charges.”9 ¶10 The Trust argues that this provision obligates Salt Lake City to supply water to its Albion Basin lot.

2020Att’y, 2019 UT 50, ¶ 9 , 448 P.3d 1236 (citation omitted). 8 Id. (citation omitted). 4 Cite as: 2020 UT 29 Opinion of the Court corporation, shall be preserved, maintained and operated by it for supplying its inhabitants with water at reasonable charges.”9 ¶10 The Trust argues that this provision obligates Salt Lake City to supply water to its Albion Basin lot.

2018What Salt Lake City wrote, however, is that the court of appeals in Utah Alunite Corp. "reference[d] the State Engineer's position that ' "as a landowner ... with inevitable water needs, [the appellant] had an interest in [the] water ...." ' " (Third alteration a correction) (quoting Utah Alunite Corp. , 2016 UT App 11 , ¶ 10 n.7, 366 P.3d 901 ).

2018What Salt Lake City wrote, however, is that the court of appeals in Utah Alunite Corp. "reference[d] the State Engineer's position that ' "as a landowner ... with inevitable water needs, [the appellant] had an interest in [the] water ...." ' " (Third alteration a correction) (quoting Utah Alunite Corp. , 2016 UT App 11 , ¶ 10 n.7, 366 P.3d 901 ).

2010It is this fact that makes Villalpando v. Reagan, 211 Ariz. 305 , 121 P.3d 172 (Ariz.Ct.App.2005), a case cited extensively in Salt Lake City's brief, inapposite.

2010It is this fact that makes Villalpando v. Reagan, 211 Ariz. 305 , 121 P.3d 172 (Ariz.Ct.App.2005), a case cited extensively in Salt Lake City's brief, inapposite.