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 1993–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rollins v. Petersengreen2 sentences2015Id.; see also Rol- lins v. Petersen, 813 P.2d 1156, 1159 (Utah 1991) (acknowledging the general rule and the special relationship exception). ¶21 In explaining these principles in Rollins, we ―acknowledge[d] the general applicability in Utah of the ‗special relation‘ analysis described in sections 314 through 320 of the Re- statement of Torts.‖ 813 P.2d at 1159 . 2015Id.; see also Rol- lins v. Petersen, 813 P.2d 1156, 1159 (Utah 1991) (acknowledging the general rule and the special relationship exception). ¶21 In explaining these principles in Rollins, we ―acknowledge[d] the general applicability in Utah of the ‗special relation‘ analysis described in sections 314 through 320 of the Re- statement of Torts.‖ 813 P.2d at 1159 . | 3 | 3 |
Carter v. Lehi Citygreen2 sentences2014See Carter, 2012 UT 2, ¶ 6 , 269 P.3d 141 . 2014See Carter, 2012 UT 2, ¶ 6 , 269 P.3d 141 . | 2 | 2 |
B.R. v. Westgreen2 sentences2014See B.R., 2012 UT 11, ¶¶ 7-19 , 275 P.3d 228 ; Restatement (Third) oF Torts: Puys. & Emot. 2014See B.R., 2012 UT 11, ¶¶ 7-19 , 275 P.3d 228 ; Restatement (Third) oF Torts: Puys. & Emot. | 2 | 2 |
Webb v. University of Utahgreen2 sentences2014T9 This court granted certiorari on the following issue: "Whether the court of appeals erred in its construction and application *248 of the special relationship test articulated by Webb v. University of Utah, 2005 UT 80 , 125 P.3d 906 ." After the parties presented oral afgument to this court, we issued an order requesting supplemental briefing on the following issues: 1. 2014T9 This court granted certiorari on the following issue: "Whether the court of appeals erred in its construction and application *248 of the special relationship test articulated by Webb v. University of Utah, 2005 UT 80 , 125 P.3d 906 ." After the parties presented oral afgument to this court, we issued an order requesting supplemental briefing on the following issues: 1. | 1 | 3 |
Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp.green2 sentences2025The public duty doctrine has served the government[] __________________________________________________________ Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 887 P.2d 848, 852 (Utah 1994); Madsen v. Borthick, 850 P.2d 442, 444 (Utah 1993); Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149 , 151–52 (Utah 1989), overruled on other grounds by Scott v. Universal Sales, Inc., 2015 UT 64 , ¶¶ 17–32, 356 P.3d 1172 ; Christenson v. Hayward, 694 P.2d 612 , 612–13 (Utah 1984) (per curiam); Obray, 484 P.2d at 161–62). 12 Public Duty Doctrine Amendments, S.B. 250, 2014 Leg., Gen. 2014In Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores, for example, Salt Lake City took various measures to combat extreme flooding. 887 P.2d at 851 . | 1 | 2 |
White v. Beasleygreen2 sentences2018Specifically, they contend that a special relationship existed because the first motorist detrimentally relied on Sanpete County's dispatch service, forgoing the opportunity to notify other agencies. ¶ 26 While Utah courts have not specifically addressed whether third-party reliance can create a special relationship, other jurisdictions require "some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party" and "that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking." Cuffy v. City of New York , 69 N.Y.2d 255 , 513 N.Y.S.2d 372 , 505 N.E.2d 937 , 2014The inherent absurdity of applying a special relationship exception to the affirmative acts of public safety employees stems from the fact that the foreseeability of the harm, rather than the nature of the tortfeasor’s relationship to the plaintiff, limits liability for affirmative 5 The public duty doctrine is not confined, however, to situations where a public employee takes no action whatsoever. “[A] failure to perform [a public duty], or an inadequate or erroneous performance, must be a public, not an individual injury . . . .” White v. Beasley, 552 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Mich. 1996) (emphasis added | 1 | 2 |
Madsen v. Borthickgreen1 sentence2025The public duty doctrine has served the government[] __________________________________________________________ Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 887 P.2d 848, 852 (Utah 1994); Madsen v. Borthick, 850 P.2d 442, 444 (Utah 1993); Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149 , 151–52 (Utah 1989), overruled on other grounds by Scott v. Universal Sales, Inc., 2015 UT 64 , ¶¶ 17–32, 356 P.3d 1172 ; Christenson v. Hayward, 694 P.2d 612 , 612–13 (Utah 1984) (per curiam); Obray, 484 P.2d at 161–62). 12 Public Duty Doctrine Amendments, S.B. 250, 2014 Leg., Gen. | 1 | 1 |
Munich v. Skagit Emergency Communications Centergreen2 sentences2018Specifically, they contend that a special relationship existed because the first motorist detrimentally relied on Sanpete County's dispatch service, forgoing the opportunity to notify other agencies. ¶ 26 While Utah courts have not specifically addressed whether third-party reliance can create a special relationship, other jurisdictions require "some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party" and "that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking." Cuffy v. City of New York , 69 N.Y.2d 255 , 513 N.Y.S.2d 372 , 505 N.E.2d 937 , 2018Specifically, they contend that a special relationship existed because the first motorist detrimentally relied on Sanpete County's dispatch service, forgoing the opportunity to notify other agencies. ¶ 26 While Utah courts have not specifically addressed whether third-party reliance can create a special relationship, other jurisdictions require "some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party" and "that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking." Cuffy v. City of New York , 69 N.Y.2d 255 , 513 N.Y.S.2d 372 , 505 N.E.2d 937 , | 1 | 1 |
City of Rome v. Jordangreen2 sentences2018Specifically, they contend that a special relationship existed because the first motorist detrimentally relied on Sanpete County's dispatch service, forgoing the opportunity to notify other agencies. ¶ 26 While Utah courts have not specifically addressed whether third-party reliance can create a special relationship, other jurisdictions require "some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party" and "that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking." Cuffy v. City of New York , 69 N.Y.2d 255 , 513 N.Y.S.2d 372 , 505 N.E.2d 937 , 2018Specifically, they contend that a special relationship existed because the first motorist detrimentally relied on Sanpete County's dispatch service, forgoing the opportunity to notify other agencies. ¶ 26 While Utah courts have not specifically addressed whether third-party reliance can create a special relationship, other jurisdictions require "some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party" and "that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking." Cuffy v. City of New York , 69 N.Y.2d 255 , 513 N.Y.S.2d 372 , 505 N.E.2d 937 , | 1 | 1 |
Carolyn Freeman v. Scott Busch Gene C. Hildreth John Hatfield Simpson College, Carolyn Freeman v. Scott Buschgreen2 sentences2012Webb, 2005 UT 80, ¶ 19 , 125 P.3d 906 (citing Freeman v. Busch, 349 F.3d 582, 587 (8th Cir.2003)). 2012Webb, 2005 UT 80, ¶ 19 (citing Freeman v. Busch, 349 F.3d 582, 587 (8th Cir. 2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Higgins v. Salt Lake Countygreen2 sentences1998Compare Higgins, 855 P.2d at 236 (stating "we have applied the Restatement’s special relationship exception to the general rule that there is no duty to control the conduct of third persons”), with id. at 237 (stating "determining whether the actor has a duty to prevent another’s harm requires careful consideration of the consequences of imposing that duty for the parties and for society”). 4 . 1998Compare Higgins, 855 P.2d at 236 (stating "we have applied the Restatement’s special relationship exception to the general rule that there is no duty to control the conduct of third persons”), with id. at 237 (stating "determining whether the actor has a duty to prevent another’s harm requires careful consideration of the consequences of imposing that duty for the parties and for society”). 4 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Day v. State Ex Rel. Utah Department of Public Safety
green
2 sentences2025Safety, 1999 UT 46, ¶ 11 , 980 P.2d 1171 ; (continued . . .) 6 Cite as: 2025 UT 25 Opinion of the Court A general duty that a governmental entity owes to the public does not create a specific duty to an individual member of the public, unless there is a special relationship between the governmental entity and the individual member of the public. 12 ¶17 Then in our opinion Cope v. Utah Valley State College, issued shortly after the legislature amended the GIA to include this provision, we reaffirmed that the public duty doctrine had not been abrogated.13 We stated in Cope that the legislative a 2025Safety, 1999 UT 46, ¶ 11 , 980 P.2d 1171 ; (continued . . .) 6 Cite as: 2025 UT 25 Opinion of the Court A general duty that a governmental entity owes to the public does not create a specific duty to an individual member of the public, unless there is a special relationship between the governmental entity and the individual member of the public. 12 ¶17 Then in our opinion Cope v. Utah Valley State College, issued shortly after the legislature amended the GIA to include this provision, we reaffirmed that the public duty doctrine had not been abrogated.13 We stated in Cope that the legislative a | 2 | 2005–2025 |
Ferree v. State
green
2 sentences2012Although disputed facts relevant to the special relationship inquiry should be resolved by the factfinder, see Normandeau v. Hanson Equip., Inc., 2009 UT 44, ¶ 21 , 215 P.3d 152 , whether the facts of a particular case place that case within a special relationship category is a matter of law for the court to decide, see Ferree, 784 P.2d at 151 . ¶ 14 University personnel do not generally have a special relationship with students. 2012Although disputed facts relevant to the special relationship inquiry should be resolved by the factfinder, see Normandeau v. Hanson Equip., Inc., 2009 UT 44, ¶ 21 , 215 P.3d 152 , whether the facts of a particular case place that case within a special relationship category is a matter of law for the court to decide, see Ferree, 784 P.2d at 151 . 20110147‐CA 6 ¶14 University personnel do not generally have a special relationship with students. | 2 | 2012–2025 |
Cope v. Utah Valley State College
green
2 sentences2017Special Relationship ¶33 Because Miller’s negligence claim is based upon a public duty, she must demonstrate a special relationship between herself and WVC “that imposes a .specific duty of care toward [her] as an individual *770 that is distinguishable from a public duty owed to the general public.” See Cope v. Utah Valley State College, 2014 UT 53, ¶ 12 , 342 P.3d 243 . 2014But because the degree to which the special relationship exception applied to the omissions of private individuals and the special relationship exception applied to the omissions of public safety officials is not a question we need resolve in this appeal, we reserve it for another day. 12 Cite as: 2014 UT 53 Opinion of the Court public duty doctrine does not apply to claims of affirmative misconduct. | 2 | 2014–2017 |
Cope v. Utah Valley State College
green
2 sentences2014Cope v. Utah Valley State Coll., 2012 UT App 319, ¶ 27 , 290 P.3d 314 . 2014Cope v. Utah Valley State Coll., 2012 UT App 319, ¶ 27 , 290 P.3d 314 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Barrani v. Salt Lake City
neutral
2 sentences2025Safety, 1999 UT 46, ¶ 11 , 980 P.2d 1171 ; (continued . . .) 6 Cite as: 2025 UT 25 Opinion of the Court A general duty that a governmental entity owes to the public does not create a specific duty to an individual member of the public, unless there is a special relationship between the governmental entity and the individual member of the public. 12 ¶17 Then in our opinion Cope v. Utah Valley State College, issued shortly after the legislature amended the GIA to include this provision, we reaffirmed that the public duty doctrine had not been abrogated.13 We stated in Cope that the legislative a 2025NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTS BETWEEN RESIDENTS AND THE CITY ¶34 Residents contend that even if the public duty doctrine would otherwise bar Residents’ claims, they meet the special relationship exception to the doctrine “because their land adjoins the nuisances, inflicting harms unique to them as neighbors.” __________________________________________________________ 37 See infra Part IV. 12 Cite as: 2025 UT 25 Opinion of the Court “[T]he special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine serves a similar function to the tort principle that a private individual generally has no duty t | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Obray v. Malmberg
green
1 sentence2025The public duty doctrine has served the government[] __________________________________________________________ Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 887 P.2d 848, 852 (Utah 1994); Madsen v. Borthick, 850 P.2d 442, 444 (Utah 1993); Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149 , 151–52 (Utah 1989), overruled on other grounds by Scott v. Universal Sales, Inc., 2015 UT 64 , ¶¶ 17–32, 356 P.3d 1172 ; Christenson v. Hayward, 694 P.2d 612 , 612–13 (Utah 1984) (per curiam); Obray, 484 P.2d at 161–62). 12 Public Duty Doctrine Amendments, S.B. 250, 2014 Leg., Gen. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Christenson v. Hayward
green
1 sentence2025The public duty doctrine has served the government[] __________________________________________________________ Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 887 P.2d 848, 852 (Utah 1994); Madsen v. Borthick, 850 P.2d 442, 444 (Utah 1993); Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149 , 151–52 (Utah 1989), overruled on other grounds by Scott v. Universal Sales, Inc., 2015 UT 64 , ¶¶ 17–32, 356 P.3d 1172 ; Christenson v. Hayward, 694 P.2d 612 , 612–13 (Utah 1984) (per curiam); Obray, 484 P.2d at 161–62). 12 Public Duty Doctrine Amendments, S.B. 250, 2014 Leg., Gen. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Scott v. Universal Sales, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025The public duty doctrine has served the government[] __________________________________________________________ Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 887 P.2d 848, 852 (Utah 1994); Madsen v. Borthick, 850 P.2d 442, 444 (Utah 1993); Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149 , 151–52 (Utah 1989), overruled on other grounds by Scott v. Universal Sales, Inc., 2015 UT 64 , ¶¶ 17–32, 356 P.3d 1172 ; Christenson v. Hayward, 694 P.2d 612 , 612–13 (Utah 1984) (per curiam); Obray, 484 P.2d at 161–62). 12 Public Duty Doctrine Amendments, S.B. 250, 2014 Leg., Gen. 2025The public duty doctrine has served the government[] __________________________________________________________ Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 887 P.2d 848, 852 (Utah 1994); Madsen v. Borthick, 850 P.2d 442, 444 (Utah 1993); Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149 , 151–52 (Utah 1989), overruled on other grounds by Scott v. Universal Sales, Inc., 2015 UT 64 , ¶¶ 17–32, 356 P.3d 1172 ; Christenson v. Hayward, 694 P.2d 612 , 612–13 (Utah 1984) (per curiam); Obray, 484 P.2d at 161–62). 12 Public Duty Doctrine Amendments, S.B. 250, 2014 Leg., Gen. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Powell v. District of Columbia
green
1 sentence2018Specifically, they contend that a special relationship existed because the first motorist detrimentally relied on Sanpete County's dispatch service, forgoing the opportunity to notify other agencies. ¶ 26 While Utah courts have not specifically addressed whether third-party reliance can create a special relationship, other jurisdictions require "some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party" and "that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking." Cuffy v. City of New York , 69 N.Y.2d 255 , 513 N.Y.S.2d 372 , 505 N.E.2d 937 , | 1 | 2018–2018 |
City of Gary v. Odie
green
1 sentence2018Specifically, they contend that a special relationship existed because the first motorist detrimentally relied on Sanpete County's dispatch service, forgoing the opportunity to notify other agencies. ¶ 26 While Utah courts have not specifically addressed whether third-party reliance can create a special relationship, other jurisdictions require "some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party" and "that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking." Cuffy v. City of New York , 69 N.Y.2d 255 , 513 N.Y.S.2d 372 , 505 N.E.2d 937 , | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Sawicki v. Village of Ottawa Hills
green
2 sentences2018Specifically, they contend that a special relationship existed because the first motorist detrimentally relied on Sanpete County's dispatch service, forgoing the opportunity to notify other agencies. ¶ 26 While Utah courts have not specifically addressed whether third-party reliance can create a special relationship, other jurisdictions require "some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party" and "that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking." Cuffy v. City of New York , 69 N.Y.2d 255 , 513 N.Y.S.2d 372 , 505 N.E.2d 937 , 2018Specifically, they contend that a special relationship existed because the first motorist detrimentally relied on Sanpete County's dispatch service, forgoing the opportunity to notify other agencies. ¶ 26 While Utah courts have not specifically addressed whether third-party reliance can create a special relationship, other jurisdictions require "some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party" and "that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking." Cuffy v. City of New York , 69 N.Y.2d 255 , 513 N.Y.S.2d 372 , 505 N.E.2d 937 , | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Francis v. State, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
green
2 sentences2018No Detrimental Reliance by Brady ¶ 25 The Simonses also argue that the special relationship exception applies because Sanpete County's actions "reasonably induce[d] detrimental reliance by a member of the public." Francis v. State , 2013 UT 65 , ¶ 27, 321 P.3d 1089 . 2018No Detrimental Reliance by Brady ¶ 25 The Simonses also argue that the special relationship exception applies because Sanpete County's actions "reasonably induce[d] detrimental reliance by a member of the public." Francis v. State , 2013 UT 65 , ¶ 27, 321 P.3d 1089 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Cuffy v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2018Specifically, they contend that a special relationship existed because the first motorist detrimentally relied on Sanpete County's dispatch service, forgoing the opportunity to notify other agencies. ¶ 26 While Utah courts have not specifically addressed whether third-party reliance can create a special relationship, other jurisdictions require "some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party" and "that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking." Cuffy v. City of New York , 69 N.Y.2d 255 , 513 N.Y.S.2d 372 , 505 N.E.2d 937 , 2018Specifically, they contend that a special relationship existed because the first motorist detrimentally relied on Sanpete County's dispatch service, forgoing the opportunity to notify other agencies. ¶ 26 While Utah courts have not specifically addressed whether third-party reliance can create a special relationship, other jurisdictions require "some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party" and "that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking." Cuffy v. City of New York , 69 N.Y.2d 255 , 513 N.Y.S.2d 372 , 505 N.E.2d 937 , | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Wilson v. Valley Mental Health
green
1 sentence2012In Wilson, the court held that the special-relationship test was superseded by a Utah statute, which "define[d] the duty of a therapist in cases where it is alleged that a therapist had a duty to warn or take precautions to provide protection from the violent behavior of a client." Id. at 421 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Normandeau v. Hanson Equipment, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012Although disputed facts relevant to the special relationship inquiry should be resolved by the factfinder, see Normandeau v. Hanson Equip., Inc., 2009 UT 44, ¶ 21 , 215 P.3d 152 , whether the facts of a particular case place that case within a special relationship category is a matter of law for the court to decide, see Ferree, 784 P.2d at 151 . 20110147‐CA 6 ¶14 University personnel do not generally have a special relationship with students. 2012Although disputed facts relevant to the special relationship inquiry should be resolved by the factfinder, see Normandeau v. Hanson Equip., Inc., 2009 UT 44, ¶ 21 , 215 P.3d 152 , whether the facts of a particular case place that case within a special relationship category is a matter of law for the court to decide, see Ferree, 784 P.2d at 151 . 20110147‐CA 6 ¶14 University personnel do not generally have a special relationship with students. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.