## Facts

- Davis County voters approved a 2000 ballot measure supporting fluoridation of the county’s public water supply.
- After implementation began, opponents circulated a petition to place a substantially similar “revote” fluoridation question on the 2002 ballot.
- The Davis County Clerk accepted the petition and placed the revote question on the ballot.
- Utahns for Better Dental Health—Davis, Inc. (UFBDH), a nonprofit supporting fluoridation, sued for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent or invalidate the revote as an improper use of the initiative process.
- The district court ruled for UFBDH on the merits against the Clerk but denied UFBDH’s request for attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether Utah recognizes a private attorney general doctrine permitting attorney’s fees to a prevailing party who vindicates important public interests without statutory authorization.
2. Whether UFBDH qualified for attorney’s fees under the common-fund doctrine or any other recognized exception to the American Rule.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees.
- Utah declined to adopt a private attorney general doctrine as a freestanding, equitable exception to the American Rule.
- The common-fund doctrine did not apply because the litigation did not create or preserve a discrete monetary fund.
- No other established exception (including bad faith) justified shifting fees to the public defendants.

## Legal Principles

- Under the American Rule, each party bears its own attorney’s fees unless a statute, contract, or recognized exception authorizes an award.
- Utah courts will not create a broad private attorney general fee-shifting doctrine based solely on the public importance of the rights vindicated; such policy judgments are for the legislature.
- The common-fund exception applies only where litigation creates, preserves, or increases a specific monetary fund benefiting others, from which fees can be paid.
- Nonmonetary public benefits, even if substantial, do not satisfy the common-fund requirement.

## Conclusion

Although UFBDH prevailed on the underlying claim that the revote measure was an improper use of the initiative power, it was not entitled to attorney’s fees because Utah applies the American Rule absent statutory authorization or a narrow, established exception, and neither a private attorney general theory nor the common-fund doctrine fit the case.


Utahns for Better Dental Health—Davis, Inc. v. Davis Cnty. Clerk, 175 P.3d 1036 (Utah 2007)