Kendall v. Olsen, 2017 UT 38

Plaintiff Sean Kendall sued after a Salt Lake City police officer shot and killed his dog, seeking damages and a declaratory judgment that two Utah statutes violated the Open Courts Clause.
Challenged statutes: Utah Code §63G-7-601 (requires a $300 undertaking to sue a governmental entity) and §78B-3-104 (requires a bond covering officers’ estimated costs and attorney fees when sued for acts within official duties).
District court found Kendall could afford the $300 undertaking and was impecunious such that the bond requirement did not apply, and dismissed for lack of traditional standing; it alternatively held the statutes constitutional.
Kendall appealed; he argued the statutes violated the Open Courts Clause but did not brief the district court’s traditional-standing findings in his opening appellate brief.
The Supreme Court affirmed solely because Kendall failed to challenge the district court’s independent standing ruling on appeal, declining to reach the constitutional merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kendall had standing to challenge the undertaking and bond statutes	Kendall argued he was effectively barred from bringing his claim and asserted public-interest standing to address the statutes’ constitutional defects	Defendants argued Kendall lacked traditional standing because he could pay the $300 undertaking and was not required to post a bond	Court affirmed dismissal because Kendall failed to challenge the district court’s traditional-standing finding in his opening brief, so standing was an independent, unrefuted basis for dismissal
Whether §§63G-7-601 and 78B-3-104 violate the Open Courts Clause	Kendall argued the statutes erect substantial barriers to access to courts in civil suits against officers	Defendants defended the statutes as lawful prerequisites and procedures for suits against governmental actors and officers	Court did not decide merits; declined to reach the constitutional claim because of appellant’s briefing failure on standing

Allen v. Friel, 194 P.3d 903 (Utah 2008) (failure to challenge a lower court’s final order on appeal places it beyond further review)
Gilbert v. Utah State Bar, 379 P.3d 1247 (Utah 2016) (will not reverse when appellant challenges only one of multiple independent grounds supporting a ruling)
Brown v. Glover, 16 P.3d 540 (Utah 2000) (issues raised first in reply brief are waived)
State v. Brown, 853 P.2d 851 (Utah 1992) (issues not presented in opening brief are generally not considered)