5 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Madsen v. Borthickgreen2 sentences2016It has "significantly altered the common law of sovereign immunity, and substituted a statutory framework to be interpreted by the courts and reshaped by the Legislature as- necessary from time to time." Madsen v. Borthick, 658 P.2d 627, 629-30 (Utah 1983). 2016It has ‚significantly altered the common law of sovereign immunity, and substituted a statutory framework to be interpreted by the courts and reshaped by the Legislature as necessary from time to time.‛ Madsen v. Borthick, 658 P.2d 627 , 629–30 (Utah 1983). | 2 | 2 |
Standiford v. Salt Lake City Corp.green2 sentences2018Cf. Standiford v. Salt Lake City Corp. , 605 P.2d 1230 , 1234-35 (Utah 1980) (concluding that " 'governmental function' is a term of art in the law of sovereign immunity" and using the common-law definition in interpreting the predecessor Immunity Act where that term was otherwise undefined), superseded by Utah Code § 63-30-2(4)(a) (1987), as recognized in Tindley v. Salt Lake City Sch. 2015See Standiford v. Salt Lake City Corp., 605 P.2d 1230, 1235 (Utah 1980) ("The term 'government function' is a term of art in the law of sovereign immunity, meaning that a public entity is not liable for its torts committed in the exercise of a governmental function."). ' 95 . | 1 | 2 |
Johnson Ex Rel. Johnson v. Salt Lake City Corp.green1 sentence1983Commenting on the effect of the Standiford holding in redefining and limiting the extent of governmental immunity, this Court explained in Johnson v. Salt Lake City Corp., Utah, 629 P.2d 432, 433 (1981): For present purposes, this means that “all government entities are immune from suit for any injury which results from the exercise of a governmental function,” U.C.A., 1953, § 63-30-3, but such entities are not immune from suit for an injury which does not result “from the exercise of a governmental function.” It is evident from the text of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act, as interpreted in | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tindley v. Salt Lake City School District
green
2 sentences2018Dist. , 2005 UT 30 , 116 P.3d 295 . 4 This makes sense given that the cases are trying to define different terms. 5 At one point, GeoMetWatch argues that the six-part test should be used to determine whether "an entity is a governmental entity." This is not only outside the scope of the certified question, but also an inappropriate endeavor. 2018Dist. , 2005 UT 30 , 116 P.3d 295 . 4 This makes sense given that the cases are trying to define different terms. 5 At one point, GeoMetWatch argues that the six-part test should be used to determine whether "an entity is a governmental entity." This is not only outside the scope of the certified question, but also an inappropriate endeavor. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.