Utah Supreme Court
Can extraordinary relief substitute for a missed statutory appeal? Utah County v. Alexanderson Explained
Summary
Utah County filed a Rule 65B petition for extraordinary relief to challenge a Career Service Council decision favoring sheriff’s deputies in a promotion grievance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition because the County failed to pursue its statutory right to direct appeal to the district court within thirty days of the Council’s decision.
Analysis
In Utah County v. Alexanderson, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether a petitioner can use extraordinary relief under Rule 65B as a substitute for a missed statutory appeal deadline. The Court’s answer was definitively no.
Background and Facts
Utah County sheriff’s deputies filed a grievance challenging promotion procedures with the Utah County Career Service Council. After the Council ruled in favor of the deputies, Utah County bypassed its statutory right to direct appeal and instead filed a Rule 65B petition for extraordinary relief in district court. The trial court granted the petition, but the Court of Appeals reinstated the Council’s decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the proper standard for Rule 65B analysis.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Utah County could pursue extraordinary relief when it had failed to exercise its statutory right to direct appeal under the County Personnel Management Act. The Act provided that following a council’s decision, “a right of appeal to the district court under the provisions of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure shall not be abridged.”
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the petition. Rule 65B requires that extraordinary relief be available only “where no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is available.” Since Utah County had a statutory right to direct appeal, this constituted an adequate remedy that precluded extraordinary relief. Moreover, the Court determined that Utah County’s right to appeal had expired after thirty days, based on the uniform appearance of thirty-day appeal periods in applicable statutes and rules.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces the fundamental principle that extraordinary relief is truly extraordinary and cannot substitute for available statutory remedies. Practitioners must carefully identify and timely pursue all available appeals before seeking Rule 65B relief. The Court’s jurisdictional analysis also demonstrates that failure to exhaust adequate remedies renders subsequent extraordinary relief petitions invalid from the outset.
Case Details
Case Name
Utah County v. Alexanderson
Citation
2005 UT 67
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20030516
Date Decided
October 14, 2005
Outcome
Dismissed
Holding
A petition for extraordinary relief under Rule 65B is invalid when the petitioner failed to pursue an available direct statutory appeal and the time for such appeal has expired.
Standard of Review
Subject matter jurisdiction reviewed for correctness
Practice Tip
Always exhaust statutory appeals before seeking extraordinary relief, as Rule 65B requires that no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy be available.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.