The Utah Supreme Court heard oral arguments Oct. 28 in a petition for extraordinary relief challenging municipal incorporation proceedings, according to an opinion filed Nov. 6. Derek Anderson filed the petition against Judge Matthew Bates and multiple other parties in *Anderson v. Hon. Bates* (Utah 2025).
The case stems from proceedings in Utah's Third District Court in Silver Summit, where Judge Matthew D. Bates presided over matters related to municipal incorporation. Anderson's petition names numerous respondents and real parties in interest, including Jennifer McCaffrey, Kurt Larsh, Kris Klein, Patsy Klein, Tyler Gough, Chanelle McGregor, Lindy Sternlight, Dan Sternlight, Scott Earl, and DeEtte Earl.
Lieutenant Governor Deidre M. Henderson was also named as a respondent in her official capacity under Utah's Municipal Incorporation Code. However, Henderson took no position on Anderson's petition, responding only that "she performed the duties required of her under the Municipal Incorporation Code," according to court documents.
Judge Bates similarly declined to actively defend against the petition, filing a notice stating he would not respond because "the real-parties-in-interest are in the best position to make the necessary arguments." This procedural stance reflects the common practice where judges allow affected parties to defend their interests rather than the court itself taking a position.
The extraordinary relief petition represents an unusual procedural vehicle in Utah courts, typically reserved for situations where normal appellate processes are inadequate or unavailable. Such petitions are discretionary with the Utah Supreme Court and require showing that extraordinary circumstances warrant the court's intervention.
While the specific underlying dispute is not detailed in the available court filings, the case appears to involve challenges to municipal incorporation procedures under Utah law. Municipal incorporation cases often involve disputes over boundary determinations, feasibility studies, public hearings, or compliance with statutory requirements for creating new municipalities.
The case required significant judicial recusals at the Utah Supreme Court level. Chief Justice Durrant, Associate Chief Justice Pearce, and Justice Pohlman all recused themselves from participating in the decision. To maintain a full panel, the court was supplemented by Court of Appeals Judge Michele M. Christiansen Forster, Court of Appeals Judge John D. Luthy, and District Court Judge Roger W. Griffin.
Justice Hagen authored the court's opinion, joined by Justice Petersen and the three substitute judges. The substantial number of recusals suggests potential conflicts of interest among the regular justices, though the specific reasons for recusal are not detailed in the public record.
The legal representation in the case reflects the complexity and significance of the municipal incorporation issues at stake. Anderson was represented by Troy L. Booher and Caroline A. Olsen of Salt Lake City. The respondents were represented by Janet M. Conway of Wanship and C. Michael Judd of Salt Lake City.
Lieutenant Governor Henderson's office was represented by multiple attorneys from the Utah Attorney General's office, including Derek E. Brown, the Attorney General, along with Assistant Attorneys General Lance Sorenson and Keith W. Barlow, and Assistant Solicitor General Sarah Goldberg. Judge Bates was represented by Joseph A. Willard.
The case carries the citation 2025 UT 51 and is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter, the official reporter for Utah Supreme Court decisions. This standard notation indicates the opinion may undergo technical corrections before its permanent publication in the bound volumes.
Municipal incorporation disputes in Utah have become increasingly complex as communities seek to establish new municipalities or modify existing boundaries. These cases often involve detailed statutory requirements, feasibility studies, and extensive public participation processes mandated by state law.
The Utah Supreme Court's willingness to hear Anderson's extraordinary relief petition suggests the case raised substantial legal questions warranting immediate review rather than waiting for traditional appellate processes. Such petitions are granted sparingly and typically involve issues of broad public interest or novel legal questions.
The involvement of Lieutenant Governor Henderson reflects her statutory role in Utah's municipal incorporation process. Under Utah law, the Lieutenant Governor's office has specific responsibilities in reviewing and processing municipal incorporation petitions, making her office a necessary party when those processes are challenged.
The case's resolution could have implications for future municipal incorporation proceedings in Utah, depending on the specific legal issues the court addressed. However, the substantive holding and reasoning of the court's decision are not available in the current court record.
The Third District Court case number 250500258 suggests this matter has been pending since 2025, indicating a relatively swift progression to the state's highest court through the extraordinary relief petition process.