Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lovendahl v. Jordan School District

Utah Supreme Court

Decided December 27, 2002No. 20010274Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDurrant, Associate Chief Justice

¶ 55 I concur in the result but dissent from the reasoning of the lead opinion. While I agree with the lead opinion’s position on the first two Ledfors1 questions, in my view, the third Ledfors question should be answered differently.

¶ 56 The third Ledfors question requires the trial court to make the following inquiry to determine whether a governmental entity is immune from suit: “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 this case?” 849 P.2d at 1164. I…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ledfors v. Emery County School DistrictUtah Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Branam v. Provo School DistrictUtah Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Cook v. Zions First National BankUtah Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Williams v. Carbon County Board of EducationUtah Supreme Court · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API