Utah Supreme Court
2006 UT 33, 137 P.3d 797
Local governments have authority to enter agreements pursuant to their general contracting power, as long as they do not exceed their individual authority.
The Interlocal Cooperation Act provides that government entities may enter contracts, but the Act does not prescribe limits on a local government’s inherent authority to enter contracts in general.
A district court will not disturb a local government’s determination that a public improvement is necessary, unless it is shown that the decision was made based on fraud, bad faith, or abuse of discretion. If there is evidence of fraud, bad faith, or an abuse of discretion, a court does defer to the local government’s decision that the improvement was necessary.
The Federal Constitution does not require any special notice or procedure to protect a property owner’s Due Process Rights, as long as there is a mechanism for obtaining compensation.
The expediency of appropriating property and constructing a public improvement is a political question, and courts will defer to the local agency, unless there is evidence of fraud, bad faith, or abuse of discretion on the part of the agency.
An agency may obtain an order of immediate occupancy by presenting prima facie evidence of the agency’s authority to condemn the property, and the elements found in the Utah Code.
See also Provo City v. Ivie