A bill clarifying a law that was at the heart of a legal dispute between the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Corp. may be amended or scrapped altogether.

Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, said he introduced the bill Tuesday during a special session of the state Legislature to prevent future confusion over the proper location for lawsuits dealing with contract disputes.

But Valentine, a tax attorney, soon found himself in the middle of the newspapers' battle.

Wednesday, a day after the bill passed the Senate and following discussions with an attorney for the Tribune's managers, Valentine agreed to amend the bill so it would be less likely to affect a Utah Supreme Court appeal brought by the Tribune.

Later, Valentine said he might drop the bill altogether and let the Judiciary Interim Committee study possible changes to the law that could be acted upon during the 2002 Legislature.

The Supreme Court appeal, however, was decided in favor of the Tribune on Wednesday. The court decided the News' lawsuit, which claims among other things that the Tribune's managers tried to hinder its move to morning publication, is more properly argued in Salt Lake County rather than Davis County.

The bill Valentine proposed this week seeks to clarify the law governing where court disputes over certain contracts should be heard — the same law the Supreme Court weighed in its ruling. Previously, 2nd District Judge Jon M. Memmott ruled that Davis County was a proper venue for the court case.

The dispute, in essence, centered on a single paragraph in state law that allows contract disputes to be heard wherever those contract obligations are performed. Since both the Deseret News and Tribune deliver papers and conduct business in Davis County, the law appears to suggest Davis County as a proper location for court hearings.

However, the courts have had to contend with the legitimacy of that 1990 law. The version of the bill that was recorded as law included the paragraph in question. It was part of an amendment proposed by Valentine, who was then a member of the House.

But in actuality, the Senate refused to concur with that amendment. A clerical error allowed the version of the bill with the amendment to become law, and that version of the bill has been on the books since 1990. Valentine's current bill confirms that version as law, essentially approving his amendment 11 years after it was rejected by the Senate.

Valentine said he only wanted to clarify the law to prevent future disputes arising from the 1990 error.