Faculty and students will get a look inside the courtroom as the Utah State Supreme Court comes to campus today.

The state’s highest court will hear two arguments at BYU’s J. Reuben Clark Law School.

“The court, twice each year, does visits to law campuses in the state,” said Nancy Volmer, a spokeswoman for the state court. “In the fall they visit BYU and in the spring they visit the University of Utah.”

Three of the court’s five justices have ties to BYU. Chief Justice Christine M. Durham, Associate Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant and Justice Michael J. Wilkins all taught at BYU’s law school.

The two arguments that will be heard today are:

Egbert v. Nissan

In 2002, Jerad Egbert, his expectant wife Emily and their two-year-old son were traveling on Interstate 15 near Cedar City. When Jerad swerved to avoid colliding with another vehicle, he lost control of his 1998 Nissan Altima, leaving the freeway and rolling nearly three times.

Jerad and his son were restrained in the car, but Emily, who was not wearing her seatbelt, was ejected through the shattered passenger window, suffering a broken pelvis and other injuries.

In emergency surgery following the accident, she gave birth to a baby with a “serious brain injury,” according to court documents.

The Egberts are pursuing a product liability lawsuit against Nissan, claiming the automaker’s use of tempered glass did not restrain Emily in the car in the same way that laminated glass might have.

Nissan’s response is that the car has no defects, according to U.S. law.

“The window complied with applicable government safety regulations, which allowed Nissan to use either tempered glass or laminated glass in the passenger window,” Nissan attorneys argued in a written brief filed with the court.

Furthermore, Nissan argues all passenger vehicles manufactured in the U.S. in 1997 (the year the Egberts’ Altima was made) used tempered glass in front side windows.

“Jerad was inattentive and lost control of the car, causing the accident and the resulting injuries,” company attorneys wrote in a court brief.

An earlier trial was in favor of Nissan. This hearing is an appeal of the earlier finding, questioning the constitutionality of Utah’s product liability laws.

Anthony v. Utah State Bar

Thomas E. Anthony, a 28-year California attorney, is suing the Utah State Bar for admission to the state’s examination.

Applying to the Utah Bar examination in 2009, he was notified that he no longer qualified to participate.

“I have a perfect and unblemished record for the 28 years I have practiced law in California,” Anthony told the court in a written brief.

Anthony, a Utah native, graduated from California’s Western State University College of Law in 1980. At the time of his graduation, the school was accredited in California, but not by the American Bar Association. It received its A.B.A. accreditation later.

Until 2004, Utah state law required graduates from non-A.B.A. accredited schools to practice for five years in their respective jurisdictions before applying to the Utah State Bar.

After passing the California Bar in 1980 (one of the toughest in the nation, Anthony’s lawyers point out), Anthony practiced law in California for more than the required five years and applied to the Utah Bar in 1988. He was admitted to the examination in 1989, but missed the test because of a conflict.

When he reapplied in 2009, after moving to Utah, he was informed that under the new law he no longer qualified to sit in the exam because his school was not A.B.A. accredited at the time he graduated, a new stipulation in Utah law.

Anthony argues that applying the law retroactively is not fair or necessary to the Bar’s functions.

The Utah Bar defends that Anthony’s argument of retroactivity is invalid because his reapplication occurred after the new law went into effect.

The two cases hold interest for students in BYU’s law program. The Anthony case, in particular, hits home as students prepare to enter the legal world.

“The purpose of the Bar law is to be sure that qualified lawyers practice in Utah,” said Jon Kotter, a first-year law student from Sandy. “Given that Anthony has already passed the California Bar and practiced for a number of years without incident, and that his school has since been accredited, it seems that would be a violation of the purpose — or intent, for that matter — of the law.”

All five justices from the court will be hearing the cases at BYU.

“It’s an outreach effort on the part of the court,” Volmer said.

The two arguments will be heard at 10 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. in the school’s Moot Courtroom, room 303 in the J. Reuben Clark Building.