Legal Opinion · Dissent

Francis v. State, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Utah Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 2013No. 20111027Published

1DissentJustice Parrish

[ 50 Though I join in part I of the majority opinion, I respectfully dissent from part III, and would therefore not reach the issue discussed in part II. Under the plain language of the statute, I conclude that the presence of indigenous wildlife is a "natural condition on publicly owned or controlled lands" and that the State is therefore entitled to immunity. Urax CopEr § 63G-7-801(5)(k). Because I would hold that the State is immune from liability under the natural condition exception, I would not reach the issue of whether the State owed any duty to the Mulveys.

I. THE PRESENCE OF…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Blackner v. State, Departmant of TransportationUtah Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Grappendorf v. Pleasant Grove CityUtah Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Palumbo v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Com'nDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986
  4. Estate of Hilston Ex Rel. Hilston v. StateMontana Supreme Court · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API