Skip to main content
Tyson B. Snow

Tyson Snow’s Legal Cases

6 total

  • Anderson v. Bell, 2010 UT 47

    Practice Area:
    Election Campaigns & Political Law
    Date:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Outcome:
    Ruling in favor of Farley Anderson
    Description:
    The Utah Supreme Court ruled in favor of Farley Anderson based on his argument that electronic signatures or e-signatures are valid for purposes of an independent candidate's petition to be nominating as a candidate for a statewide election. Per the ACLU's press release: "The Utah Supreme Court today issued an opinion validating the use of e-signatures in the electoral process. The Court’s opinion, the first of its kind nationwide, has the potential to increase significantly the ability of independent candidates to access the general election ballot, and thus to increase the opportunity for minority viewpoints to be heard and considered in election years." Mr. Anderson is an independent gubernatorial candidate who candidacy petition was denied because some of the 1,000+ signatures he collected in support of his candidacy were electronic. The case was heard in the first instance in the Utah Supreme Court on a writ for extraordinary relief. The Utah Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Anderson and instructed Utah's Lieutenant Governor to count the electronic signatures Mr. Anderson collected.
  • USF&G v. USSSA, 2012 UT 3

    Practice Area:
    Insurance
    Date:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Outcome:
    In favor of USSSA
    Description:
    The United States District Court for the District of Utah certified three questions to the Utah Supreme Court:(1) Does an insurer have a right to reimbursement or restitution against an insured? (2) If an insurer does have a right to reimbursement or restitution against an insured, are there any prerequisites to receiving such a right? (3) And finally, if such a right exists, does an insurer’s payment in excess of a policy’s limit impact any such right? The Utah Supreme Court concluded that an insurer may obtain the right to reimbursement from its insured only when the right is expressly provided in their insurance agreement, and therefore the other two questions were moot. I represented USSSA in successfully arguing that the insurer, USF&G, could not seek reimbursement from USSSA because there was no reimbursement provision in their insurance agreement.
  • Boegh v. Energy Solutions, Inc., 2012 WL 1576158

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Date:
    May 03, 2012
    Outcome:
    Summary Judgment in favor of Energy Soluntions, Inc.
    Description:
    Plaintiff sued EnergySolutions claiming that his employment was terminated as a result of purpoted whistleblowing activities related to a remediation project in Paducah, Kentucky.
  • Johnson-Stanton v. Management and Training Corp., 434 Fed. Appx. 753, 2011 WL 4091083

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Date:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Outcome:
    Summary Judgment in Favor of MTC; affirmed on appeal.
    Description:
    Plaintitff sued Management and Training Corp. ("MTC") alleging race and national origin discrimination. After the completion of discovery, MTC moved for summary judgment, which was unopposed by Plaintiff. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of MTC and the trial courts ruling was affirmed on appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • Swanson v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 1585134

    Practice Area:
    Foreclosure
    Date:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Outcome:
    Remand to State Court
    Description:
    Defendants removed the matter from state to federal court. Plaintiffs successfully remanded the matter to state court based on defendants' failure to follow the "rule of unanimity," which requires all defendants to consent to removal.
  • Davidson v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 1233230

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Date:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Outcome:
    Motions to Dismiss Granted
    Description:
    Employees brought age discrimination claims under the ADEA against Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. ("DTS"), and a number of Dollar Tree employees. DTS moved to dismiss the claims against the individuals because the ADEA does not provide for claims against individuals. DST also moved to dismiss the claims against DST based on the plaintiffs filing mistakes with the EEOC and the court. The court granted the motions to dismiss on all counts.