Ronald E. Nehring

The facts, as cited in the summary presented in the issued Utah Supreme Court opinion, were as follows:

Mr. Campbell was responsible for an automobile accident that disabled Robert Slusher and killed Todd Ospital. At the time, Mr. Campbell was insured by State Farm up to $25,000. State Farm chose not to settle the case. At trial, Mr. Campbell was found 100 percent responsible and a judgment was entered against him for $135,000. State Farm refused to pay this amount, suggesting instead that the Campbells put their house up for sale to pay off the judgment. Although State Farm did eventually pay the judgment, the Campbells sued for bad faith. At trial, the Campbells were permitted to introduce evidence that State Farm had a comprehensive nationwide policy of handling certain claims in a like manner.[18]

The jury awarded the Campbells $2,086.75 in special damages, $2.6 million in compensatory damages, and $145 million in punitive damages. The trial judge remitted this amount to $1 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages.[19]

The case of Campbell v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. is one of the highest profile cases considered by the Utah Supreme Court during the term of Nehring's service as a Utah Supreme Court justice. The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of the court's decision and entered a landmark opinion limiting the award of punitive damages. The United States Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case to the Utah Supreme Court to determine the factors to be considered in punitive damage cases to insure that any punitive damages awarded would be awarded in a manner consistent with the United States Supreme Court opinion. The task of writing the new opinion for the Utah Supreme Court fell to Justice Nehring. In providing a background for his opinion Nehring wrote:

We take up this case after remand from the United States Supreme Court, which held that the imposition of a $145 million punitive damages award against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in favor of State Farm's insured, Curtis B. Campbell, and his wife, Inez Preece Campbell, was excessive and violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (Campbell II) (rev'g 2001 UT 89, 65 P.3d 1134 (Campbell I)). The Supreme Court directed us to recalculate the punitive damages award under principles articulated in its decision. We have performed this task and reduced the jury's award to $9,018,780.75 in punitive damages, a figure nine times the amount of compensatory and special damages awarded to the Campbells.[20]

The facts, as cited in the summary presented in the issued Utah Supreme Court opinion, were as follows:

Four Brigham City police officers responded to a complaint of a loud party. They arrived at the offending residence at about three o'clock in the morning. They traveled to the back of the house to investigate the noise. From a location in the driveway, the officers peered through a slat fence and observed two apparently underage males drinking alcohol. The officers then entered the backyard through a gate, thereby obtaining a clear view into the back of the house through a screen door and two windows. The officers saw four adults restraining one juvenile. The juvenile broke free, swung a fist and struck one of the adults in the face. Two officers then opened the screen door and "hollered" to identify themselves. When no one heard them, they entered the kitchen. After entering, one of the officers again shouted to identify and call attention to himself. As those present in the kitchen became aware of the officers, they became angry that the officers had entered the house without permission.[21]

The officers subsequently arrested the adults. They were charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, disorderly conduct, and intoxication. The defendants filed a motion to suppress which gave rise to this petition.[22]

The Utah Supreme Court in a 3-2 opinion authored by Justice Nehring held that police officers could not enter a home without a warrant unless appropriate exigent circumstances justified the intrusion. The opinion further held that a suspicion of domestic violence was an insufficient exigency to justify intrusion without a warrant.[23]

The decision of the Utah Supreme Court was overturned by the United States Supreme Court which held that police may "enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury."[24] Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 US. 398 (2006)

The issue before the court was whether a physician's letter concerning the condition of Salt Lake County Mayor Nancy Workman was sufficient to permit the Salt Lake County Republican Party to replace Mayor Workman on the ballot for the November 2, 2004 general election for the office of Salt Lake County Mayor. After receiving the nomination by the Salt Lake County Republican Party to run for reelection, Mayor Workman was charged with two felonies relating to alleged misuse of county funds. The Republican party sought to withdraw her name and substitute a new nominee on the ballot. The district court ruled that the letter was not sufficient and entered an order barring Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen from replacing Mayor Workman's name on the ballot.[25]

Justice Nehring authored the opinion of a unanimous 5-0 court that reversed the decision of the District Court thus allowing the substitute candidate's name to be placed on the ballot. In his opinion, Nehring opined that an election should ensure the full opportunity for individuals to become candidates and for voters to express their choice.[26]

The facts, as stated by Justice Nehring in the introductory section of his published opinion, were as follows:

Mr. Allen, pro se, filed a petition for post-conviction relief under the Post-Conviction Relief Act. Utah Code Ann. § 78-35a-101 to -304 (2002). Mr. Allen's petition alleged five broad claims for relief; the district court, however, discovered eleven separate claims in the petition. The claims the district court found were (1) that there was judicial bias; (2) that the prosecution used false testimony during trial; (3) that the jurors were not fair and impartial; (4) that the trial court erred in refusing to give his proffered jury instructions; (5) that the jury instructions and special verdict form were erroneous; (6) that the trial court erred by trying him for multiple offenses; (7) that the Utah Supreme Court's decision on his direct appeal was result-driven and erroneous; (8) that the trial court's errors resulted in a trial that was fundamentally unfair; (9) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial; (10) that there was ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (11) that there was ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Mr. Allen's petition also challenged the trial court's denial of the jurors' request for transcripts of the prosecution witnesses' testimony.[27]

The case was filed by Mr. Allen, pro se, and not with the assistance of a lawyer. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Nehring upheld the trial court's ruling and also ruled that in order to challenge rulings made at trial, an appellant must adequately brief the issues asserted on appeal, must provide to the appellate court an adequate record to support the contentions raised in the appeal, and must procedurally and properly challenge the trial court's decision in order for the appeal before relief on appeal can be granted by an appellate court.[28]