state law claim in Utah

2017See Penrod v. Nu Creation Creme, Inc., 669 P.2d 873, 875 (Utah 1983) (“Since a negligent misrepresentation claim [based in state law] was asserted in the prior federal court action, the disposi-tive issue in this case is whether that claim is now barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, i.e., whether plaintiffs’ second claim for relief was either litigated or could have been litigated in the federal court action.”); see also Oman, 2008 UT 70, ¶ 27 , 194 P.3d 956 (“[W]e conclude that the [state law wrongful termination] issue was resolved by the federal district court and that the state dist

2017See Penrod v. Nu Creation Creme, Inc., 669 P.2d 873, 875 (Utah 1983) (“Since a negligent misrepresentation claim [based in state law] was asserted in the prior federal court action, the disposi-tive issue in this case is whether that claim is now barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, i.e., whether plaintiffs’ second claim for relief was either litigated or could have been litigated in the federal court action.”); see also Oman, 2008 UT 70, ¶ 27 , 194 P.3d 956 (“[W]e conclude that the [state law wrongful termination] issue was resolved by the federal district court and that the state dist

2017See Penrod v. Nu Creation Creme, Inc., 669 P.2d 873, 875 (Utah 1983) (“Since a negligent misrepresentation claim [based in state law] was asserted in the prior federal court action, the dispositive issue in this case is whether that claim is now barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, i.e., whether plaintiffs’ second claim for relief was either litigated or could have been litigated in the federal court action.”); see also Oman, 2008 UT 70, ¶ 27 (“[W]e conclude that the [state law wrongful termination] issue was resolved by the federal district court and that the state district court was b

2017See Penrod v. Nu Creation Creme, Inc., 669 P.2d 873, 875 (Utah 1983) (“Since a negligent misrepresentation claim [based in state law] was asserted in the prior federal court action, the disposi-tive issue in this case is whether that claim is now barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, i.e., whether plaintiffs’ second claim for relief was either litigated or could have been litigated in the federal court action.”); see also Oman, 2008 UT 70, ¶ 27 , 194 P.3d 956 (“[W]e conclude that the [state law wrongful termination] issue was resolved by the federal district court and that the state dist

2002Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 405-06, 411 , 108 S.Ct. 1877 , 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988); Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 220 , 105 S.Ct. 1904 , 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985) (holding that a state law claim that is "substantially -dependent upon analysis of the terms of an agreement made between the parties in a labor contract, that claim must either be treated as a § 301 claim [under the Labor Management Relations Act] or dismissed as pre-empted by federal labor-contract law"); Garley v. Sandia Corp., 236 F.3d 1200, 1207-09 (10th Cir.2001) (explaining Allis-Chalmers,

2002Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 405-06, 411 , 108 S.Ct. 1877 , 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988); Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 220 , 105 S.Ct. 1904 , 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985) (holding that a state law claim that is "substantially -dependent upon analysis of the terms of an agreement made between the parties in a labor contract, that claim must either be treated as a § 301 claim [under the Labor Management Relations Act] or dismissed as pre-empted by federal labor-contract law"); Garley v. Sandia Corp., 236 F.3d 1200, 1207-09 (10th Cir.2001) (explaining Allis-Chalmers,

2002See Garley v. Sandia Corp., 236 F.3d 1200, 1206 (10th Cir.2001); see also Walker v. Union Pac.

2002Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 405-06, 411 , 108 S.Ct. 1877 , 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988); Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 220 , 105 S.Ct. 1904 , 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985) (holding that a state law claim that is "substantially -dependent upon analysis of the terms of an agreement made between the parties in a labor contract, that claim must either be treated as a § 301 claim [under the Labor Management Relations Act] or dismissed as pre-empted by federal labor-contract law"); Garley v. Sandia Corp., 236 F.3d 1200, 1207-09 (10th Cir.2001) (explaining Allis-Chalmers,

2002ANALYSIS 18 The RLA preempts state law claims where in order to adjudicate those claims, the trial court must interpret the CBA 3 See Hawaiian Airlines v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 262-63 , 114 S.Ct. 2239, 2249 , 129 L.Ed.2d 203 (1994); accord Retherford v. AT & T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc., 844 P.2d 949, 968-69 (Utah 1992) ("The question before us, then, is whether resolution of the state law claim depends upon the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.

2002However, " 'as long as the state-law claim can be resolved without interpreting the agreement itself, the claim is "independent" of the agreement for [RLA] pre-emption purposes." Under such cireumstances, there is no ... preemption." Retherford, 844 P.2d at 969 (quoting Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 410 , 108 S.Ct. 1877, 1883 , 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988)). 19 Peterson challenges the trial court's conclusion that his claims were preempted because they "cannot be resolved without analyzing and interpreting the" CBA.

1991Notwithstanding any dicta to the contrary in our decision in State v. Thompson, 751 P.2d 805, 809 (Utah Ct.App.1988), it is far from clear whether the Leon exception has any vitality under a state law analysis, especially since the basis and scope of our state exclusionary rule is somewhat unsettled.

1991Notwithstanding any dicta to the contrary in our decision in State v. Thompson, 751 P.2d 805, 809 (Utah Ct.App.1988), it is far from clear whether the Leon exception has any vitality under a state law analysis, especially since the basis and scope of our state exclusionary rule is somewhat unsettled.

1991See State v. Larocco, 794 P.2d 460, 472-73 (Utah 1990).

1991See State v. Larocco, 794 P.2d 460, 472-73 (Utah 1990).