Madsen v. Borthick’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
3 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Madsen v. Borthick (1988), Condemarin v. University Hospital (1989)
3 district · 31 state decisions
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
Relies on Hans v. State of Louisiana · 55 Cal. 2d 211 - Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District · Brown v. Wichita State University · Railroad Company v. Tennessee · State Ex Rel. Baxley v. Johnson
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Article I, [Section] 11 of the Utah Constitution, which prescribes that all courts shall be open and persons shall not be barred from using them to redress injuries, was not meant to create a new remedy or a new right of action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Sovereign immunity-the principle that the state cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent-was a well-settled principle of American common law at the time Utah became a state.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]ny person having a claim for injury against a governmental entity, or against an employee for an act or omission occurring during the performance of his duties, within the scope of employment, or under color of authority shall file written notice of claim with the entity before maintaining an action, regardless of whether or not the function giving rise to the claim is characterized as governmental.... The notice of claim shall be ... directed and delivered to the responsible governmental entity according to the requirements of Section 63-30-12 or 63-30-13. [[Image here]] A claim against the state, or against its employee for an act or omission occurring during the performance of his duties, within the scope of employment, or under color of authority, is barred unless notice of claim is filed with the attorney general and the agency concerned within one year after the claim arises ....”
2 later decisions 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.