Farley v. Utah County, 440 P.3d 856

Kenyon and Irene Farley applied in 2014 to designate their Utah County land as an "agriculture protection area" under the Agricultural and Industrial Protection Areas Act to gain statutory protections from zoning/municipal restrictions.
Payson City (for a potential utility easement) and Utah County Engineer (for planned road rights-of-way) submitted modification requests seeking exclusion of narrow strips of the Farleys' property to preserve future infrastructure corridors.
The Advisory Board recommended approving the application as submitted; the Planning Commission recommended approval with the modifications. Utah County held four public hearings and approved the application with the requested modifications.
The Farleys appealed to district court asserting the county acted illegally (exceeded discretion), violated due process, violated equal protection, and raised § 1983/§ 1988 claims; district court granted summary judgment for the county.
On appeal the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the Act granted the county discretion to approve/modify, the county’s decision was reasonably debatable/substantiated, the Farleys lacked a protected property interest for due process, and they failed to show disparate treatment for equal protection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether county was required by statute to approve application without modification	Farleys: § 17-41-305 criteria were met for all parcels, so county had no discretion and must approve without changes	County: statutory scheme (§§ 17-41-302–304) requires agency review, allows consideration of objections, and permits approve/modify/reject	Held: County had discretionary authority to modify and approve; decision lawful
Whether county's approval-with-modifications was arbitrary and capricious	Farleys: county made no supporting findings; modifications lacked evidentiary support	County: record contained findings and evidence; decision is reviewable only for whether reasonable minds could reach same conclusion	Held: Not arbitrary/capricious; Farleys failed to marshal contrary evidence
Whether Farleys were deprived of a property interest (due process)	Farleys: satisfaction of statutory factors created entitlement to approval, so deprivation without process occurred	County: Act vests discretion; applicant had only unilateral expectation, not legitimate entitlement	Held: No protectable property interest; due process claim fails
Whether county violated equal protection (class-of-one)	Farleys: county singled them out without rational basis	County: Farleys failed to identify similarly situated comparators or prove differential treatment	Held: Equal protection claim fails for lack of similarly situated comparators

Far West Bank v. Robertson, 406 P.3d 1134 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (standard for viewing facts on summary judgment)
Garfield County v. United States, 424 P.3d 46 (Utah 2017) (statutory interpretation—give effect to legislature’s intent and plain language)
Harvey v. Cedar Hills City, 227 P.3d 256 (Utah 2010) (use of legislative history unnecessary where statute is unambiguous)
Olsen v. Eagle Mountain City, 248 P.3d 465 (Utah 2011) (context may render a statute’s plain meaning clear)
Oliver v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 424 P.3d 22 (Utah 2017) (harmonize statutory scheme when interpreting provisions)
Associated Gen. Contractors v. Board of Oil, Gas & Mining, 38 P.3d 291 (Utah 2001) (definition of substantial evidence)
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interest requires more than unilateral expectation)
Hyde Park Co. v. Santa Fe City Council, 226 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2000) (entitlement analysis focuses on decisionmaker discretion)
Zia Shadows, LLC v. Las Cruces City, 829 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 2016) (property interest threshold for due process claims)
Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2011) ("similarly situated" comparator requirement in equal protection class-of-one claims)