Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2005 UT 54 - Wagner v. State

Wagner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 2024

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions

100200520102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2680

Relies on Higgins v. Salt Lake County · Mohr v. Williams · Russell Packard Development, Inc. v. Carson · Genzel v. Halvorson · Mink v. University of Chicago

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “accept the material allegations in the complaint as true and interpret those facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the plaintiff as the non-moving party.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “First, courts must ascertain whether the activity was a governmental function and thereby entitled to blanket immunity under the Act. Second, if the activity constituted a governmental function, courts must then look to see whether the State has waived immunity under another section of the Act. Finally, courts must determine whether there is an exception to the waiver of immunity that retains immunity against suit for the cause of action in the particular case. '”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.