Utah Department of Transportation v. G. Kay, Inc. On September 26, 2003, Justice Parrish authored her first opinion for the Utah Supreme court in the case of Utah Department of Transportation v. G. Kay, Inc. 78 P.3d 612 (Utah 2003). In this case, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) condemned property owned by G. Kay, Inc. to make the Legacy Nature Preserve, a 2,100-acre area that was to be set aside to mitigate the environmental impacts of the construction of the proposed Legacy highway. When UDOT moved to condemn the land owned by G. Kay, Inc., G. Kay moved to dismiss UDOT’s complaint, because they did not have the authority to condemn its property. The court affirmed that UDOT did have the authority to condemn the property to mitigate the environmental impact of the construction of the Legacy Parkway Project (Legacy Highway.) Chief Justice Durham, Associate Chief Justice Durrant, Justice Wilkins, and Judge Nehring concurred in Justice Parrish's opinion.
State v. Jeffs State v. Jeffs, ( No. 20080408, Filed July 27, 2010, 2010 UT 49). The state of Utah charged
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) leader
Warren Jeffs with two counts of rape as an accomplice against Elissa Wall. Wall was a student at Alta Academy, an FLDS school where Jeffs was both a teacher and the principal. Wall had been taught by Jeffs, both in school and in church, that to disobey his teachings or those of his counselors was to be denied spiritual salvation. Jeffs’ two rape charges were the result of sexual intercourse that ensued between Elissa Wall, who was 14 at the time, and her 19-year-old cousin, Allen Steed, after Jeffs allegedly forced Wall to marry Steed. Jeffs was convicted after a jury trial in 2007 and sentenced to two consecutive terms of five years to life. Jeffs raised seven issues that he thought invalidated the jury verdict. On July 27, 2010, the Utah Supreme court reversed Jeffs’ two convictions of rape and remanded for a new trial on the grounds that "the trial court’s instructions to the jury regarding lack of consent were in error." Justice Parrish authored the court’s decision with Chief Justice Durham, Associate Chief Justice Durrant, and Justice Nehring in concurrence. Justice Parrish wrote in the conclusion of the court’s decision that "We regret the effect our opinion today may have on the victim of the underlying crime, to whom we do not wish to cause additional pain. However, we must ensure that the laws are applied evenly and appropriately."
State v. Willis In State v. Willis 100 P.3d 1218 (Utah, 2006) The defendant, Wade Willis challenged the constitutionality of the Utah code that prohibits certain "restricted persons" including those who are on probation for a felony, from possessing firearms. Willis, who was on probation for a third degree felony, was found in possession of a nine-millimeter handgun. Willis was charged with a second degree felony under Utah Code section 76-10-503(2)(a) which prohibits convicted felons from possessing a firearm. Willis argues that this violates his right to bear arms, a right guaranteed by the Utah constitution (Article 1, Section 6.) Justice Parrish and the court in a unanimous opinion, rejected his argument. Parrish stated "that there is no evidence in the legislative history to suggest the existence of an intent to extend the right of gun possession to felons."
American Bush v. City of South Salt Lake In American Bush v. City of South Salt Lake, 140. P.3d 1235 (Utah 2006). the City of South Salt Lake passed an ordinance that prohibited
sexually oriented business employees from "[a]ppear[ing] in a state of nudity before a patron on the premises of a sexually oriented business." American Bush, Paradise Modeling and Leather and Lace filed an action in state court claiming that this ordinance violated their free speech rights as defined by the Utah State Constitution. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of South Salt lake, stating that the right to "communicate freely their thoughts and opinions" did not extend to nude dancing in sexually oriented businesses. Justice Parrish, with Associate Chief Justice Wilkins and Justice Durrant in concurrence, affirmed the court’s summary judgment.
University of Utah v. Shurtleff University of Utah v. Shurtleff 144 P.3d 1109 (Utah, 2006). Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff issued Opinion No. 01-002, which claimed that the University’s policy prohibiting firearms on campus violated Utah’s Uniform Firearms Act, The University sued the Attorney general for a
declaratory judgement claiming that, under Article X, Section 4 of the
Utah Constitution, they could disregard Utah Law when it interfered with academic affairs. During the appeals process, Utah Legislature passed section 63-98-102, which prohibits state and local entities from enforcing policies that inhibit the possession of firearms on public or private property. Justice Parrish with Associate Chief Justice Wilkins, Justice Durrant, and Justice Nehring in concurrence gave the opinion that the University of Utah did not have the power to disregard Utah Law. Chief Justice Durham dissented. == Public speeches ==