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.
7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
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 |
Ledfors v. Emery County School Districtgreen2 sentences2002Dist., 849 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1993), we clarified that determining whether a governmental entity is immune from suit under the Act requires the court to answer three questions; (1) 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 of the Utah Code? (2) If the activity undertaken was a governmental function, has some other section of the Act waived that blanket immunity? (3) If the blanket immunity has been waived, does the Act also contain an exception to that waiver which results in a rete 2002Dist., 849 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1993), we clarified that determining whether a governmental entity is immune from suit under the Act requires the court to answer three questions: (1) 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 of the Utah Code? (2) If the activity undertaken was a governmental function, has some other section of the Act waived that blanket immunity? (3) If the blanket immunity has been waived, does the Act also contain an exception to that waiver which results in a rete | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lyon v. Burton
green
2 sentences2007Third, if the blanket immunity has been waived, does the Act also contain an exception to that waiver which results in a retention of immunity against the particular claim asserted in [the] case?" Lyon v. Burton 2000 UT 19, ¶ 13 , 5 P.3d 616 (citation omitted) (quoting Ledfors v. Emery County Sch. 2007Third, if the blanket immunity has been waived, does the Act also contain an exception to that waiver which results in a retention of immunity against the particular claim asserted in [the] case?" Lyon v. Burton 2000 UT 19, ¶ 13 , 5 P.3d 616 (citation omitted) (quoting Ledfors v. Emery County Sch. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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 |