Utah Court of Appeals

Can construction during appeal render administrative review moot? Wasatch County v. Utility Facility Review Board Explained

2018 UT App 191
No. 20160523-CA
October 4, 2018
Dismissed

Summary

Rocky Mountain Power obtained a conditional use permit from Wasatch County to construct transmission lines after the Utility Facility Review Board ordered the county to issue the permit. Wasatch County sought judicial review but did not request a stay, allowing construction to proceed. The transmission lines were completed during the appeal.

Analysis

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important issue for practitioners challenging administrative decisions in Wasatch County v. Utility Facility Review Board. The case demonstrates how failing to seek appropriate stays can doom an appeal before it reaches the merits.

Background and Facts

Rocky Mountain Power sought a conditional use permit from Wasatch County to construct 0.26 miles of transmission lines. When the county denied the permit, the Utility Facility Review Board ordered the county to issue it within sixty days. Wasatch County requested a stay from the Board, which was denied. The county then issued the permit and filed for judicial review in the court of appeals, but critically did not seek a stay from the court. Rocky Mountain completed construction of the transmission lines while the appeal was pending.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the proceeding for judicial review was rendered moot when construction was completed during the pendency of the appeal without a court-ordered stay.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the principle that “[a] case may be mooted on appeal if the relief requested is rendered impossible or of no legal effect.” Drawing on Utah Supreme Court precedent in Transportation Alliance Bank and Richards v. Baum, the court emphasized that parties must use all available procedural tools to preserve the status quo. The court noted that abundant case law from multiple jurisdictions supports dismissing appeals as moot when construction proceeds without a stay. Wasatch County’s requested remedy—rescinding the permit and dismantling the transmission towers—was no longer available.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the critical importance of seeking stays at every available level when challenging construction-related administrative decisions. Practitioners must first seek a stay from the agency, then immediately pursue appellate court relief if denied. The court’s analysis demonstrates that mootness can quickly derail even meritorious challenges when proper procedural safeguards are not employed.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Wasatch County v. Utility Facility Review Board

Citation

2018 UT App 191

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20160523-CA

Date Decided

October 4, 2018

Outcome

Dismissed

Holding

A proceeding for judicial review of an administrative agency’s order is rendered moot when the petitioner fails to seek a stay and the subject construction is completed during the pendency of the appeal.

Standard of Review

Not applicable (case dismissed as moot)

Practice Tip

Always immediately seek a stay from the agency and appellate court when challenging construction permits to preserve the status quo and avoid mootness issues.

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

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Bodell Construction Co. v. Stewart Title and Guaranty Co.

    August 21, 1997

    A title insurance company is not liable for its agent’s misconduct in escrow, closing, or settlement transactions where the agent lacks apparent or implied authority to act on the company’s behalf in those capacities.
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Landon

    April 24, 2014

    Even assuming the trial court erred in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior warrant arrest under Rule 404(b), the error was harmless because other evidence corroborated the state’s version of events and defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice.
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
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.