Cook v. Ivins City
Cook v. Ivins City, 2025 UT App 85 (Tenney, J.)
Administrative/Civil Procedure
The Utah Court of Appeals held:
- Cook did not carry his burden of establishing prejudicial procedural error because the city council did not engage in a “reconsideration” of its resolution of the proposed zoning change.
- Cook failed to show that his due process rights were violated because he and the citizens in question were given a meaningful opportunity to be heard about whether the proposed zoning change should be approved.
- Judicial tip: When parties place the interpretation and meaning of a particular statutory provision (or a rule, or a municipal ordinance) squarely before an appellate court, that court’s interpretive analysis is not limited by the parties’ respective interpretations.