Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keegan v. Stategreen2 sentences2005ANALYSIS ¶ 6 We use a three-part analysis to determine whether a governmental entity is entitled to immunity under the Act: “(1) Was the activity undertaken by the entity a governmental function and therefore immunized from suit under the general grant of immunity contained in Utah Code [section] 63-30-3? (2) If the activity undertaken was a governmental function, has another section of the Act waived that blanket immunity? (3) If immunity has been waived, does the Act contain an exception to that waiver resulting in a retention of immunity against the claim asserted?” Sandberg v. Lehman, Jens 2003Keegan v. State, 896 P.2d 618, 619-20 (Utah 1995). | 3 | 3 |
Standiford v. Salt Lake City Corp.green2 sentences2002See Standiford v. Salt Lake City Corp., 605 P.2d 1230, 1235 (Utah 1980) (“The general grant of immunity only extends to injuries resulting from ‘the exercise of a governmental function.... ”). 2002See Standiford v. Salt Lake City Corp., 605 P.2d 1230, 1235 (Utah 1980) ("The general grant of immunity only extends to injuries resulting from `the exercise of a governmental function . . . ."). | 1 | 2 |
Hansen v. Salt Lake Countygreen1 sentence1999See Hansen v. Salt Lake County, 794 P.2d 838, 842 (Utah 1990). ¶ 15 Section 63-30-3(1) of the Act confers the general grant of immunity: “Except as may be otherwise provided in this chapter, all governmental entities are immune from suit for any injury which results from the exercise of a governmental function[.]” Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-3 (1) (1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ledfors v. Emery County School District
green
2 sentences2010First, we ask whether the activity performed was "a governmental function and therefore immunized from suit by the general grant of immunity contained in section 68-80-38." Lyon v. Burton, 2000 UT 19, ¶ 13 , 5 P.3d 616 (quoting Ledfors, 849 P.2d at 1164 ). 2005To determine whether the Act bars Cline’s claims against DCFS and Forsyth in her official capacity, we undertake the following three-step inquiry set forth in Ledfors v. Emery County School District, 849 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1993): First, was the activity the entity performed a governmental function and therefore immunized from suit by the general grant of immunity contained in section 63-30-3? | 6 | 2002–2024 |
Clegg v. WASATCH COUNTY
green
2 sentences2012First, we must determine whether the "activity ... performed by [the entity is] a governmental function and therefore immunized from suit by the general grant of immunity contained in [section 63G-7-201 of the GIAU]." Clegg, 2010 UT 5, ¶ 11 , 227 P.3d 1248 ; see also Utah Code Ann. § 63G-T-201. 2012First, we must determine whether the “activity . . . performed by [the entity is] a governmental function and therefore immunized from suit by the general grant of immunity contained in [section 63G‐7‐201 of the GIAU].” Clegg, 2010 UT 5, ¶ 11 ; see also Utah Code Ann. § 63G‐7‐201. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Lyon v. Burton
green
2 sentences2010First, we ask whether the activity performed was "a governmental function and therefore immunized from suit by the general grant of immunity contained in section 68-80-38." Lyon v. Burton, 2000 UT 19, ¶ 13 , 5 P.3d 616 (quoting Ledfors, 849 P.2d at 1164 ). 2010First, we ask whether the activity performed was "a governmental function and therefore immunized from suit by the general grant of immunity contained in section 68-80-38." Lyon v. Burton, 2000 UT 19, ¶ 13 , 5 P.3d 616 (quoting Ledfors, 849 P.2d at 1164 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Sandberg v. Lehman, Jensen & Donahue, L.C.
neutral
2 sentences2005ANALYSIS ¶ 6 We use a three-part analysis to determine whether a governmental entity is entitled to immunity under the Act: “(1) Was the activity undertaken by the entity a governmental function and therefore immunized from suit under the general grant of immunity contained in Utah Code [section] 63-30-3? (2) If the activity undertaken was a governmental function, has another section of the Act waived that blanket immunity? (3) If immunity has been waived, does the Act contain an exception to that waiver resulting in a retention of immunity against the claim asserted?” Sandberg v. Lehman, Jens 2005ANALYSIS ¶ 6 We use a three-part analysis to determine whether a governmental entity is entitled to immunity under the Act: “(1) Was the activity undertaken by the entity a governmental function and therefore immunized from suit under the general grant of immunity contained in Utah Code [section] 63-30-3? (2) If the activity undertaken was a governmental function, has another section of the Act waived that blanket immunity? (3) If immunity has been waived, does the Act contain an exception to that waiver resulting in a retention of immunity against the claim asserted?” Sandberg v. Lehman, Jens | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.