Skip to main content
Utah Supreme Court· 12/12/1988

Madsen v. Borthick

Citations

  • 769 P.2d 245
  • 97 Utah Adv. Rep. 13
  • 1988 Utah LEXIS 128
  • 1988 WL 134581

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that notice is required regardless of whether the suit is against the governmental entity or its employees and is a jurisdictional requirement to filing suit
  • explaining that the doctrine of claim preclusion bars a cause of action if it “could and should have been raised” in an earlier action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits
  • appellate courts have fundamental duty to give effect, if possible, to every word of a statute
  • “[R]ule . 41(b) ... comprehensively define[s] a dis missal on the merits; not just rule 41(b) dismissals, but all dismissals.”
  • the court decided that a statutory provision which eliminated the Department of Financial Institutions Commissioners’ liability as individuals for gross negligence was a change in the substantive law
  • “Dismissals in which the merits could not be reached for failure of the plaintiff to satisfy a precondition do not ordinarily bar subsequent suits.” (quotation simplified)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Zimmerman, Hall, Howe, Stewart, Durham

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

101 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Madsen v. Borthick

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.