Opinion ID: 2514627
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Importance of the Distinction Between Immunity from Suit and Immunity from Liability

Text: ¶ 11 The distinction between immunity from suit and immunity from liability is important to the federal courts because it defines their jurisdiction. Under the collateral order doctrine, federal appellate courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear appeals of orders denying motions to dismiss where the motions are based on immunity from suit. [7] They do not, however, have jurisdiction to hear appeals of orders denying claims of immunity from liability. [8] Thus, a federal appellate court's jurisdiction to hear an appeal turns on the scope of the immunity. [9] ¶ 12 When the claimed immunity derives from state law, the scope of the immunityi.e., whether the immunity in question is immunity from suit or immunity from liabilityis governed by state law. [10] Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has asked us to interpret the scope of the immunity conferred to state officials under the UGIA so that it can determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the troopers' appeal. This is a question of first impression because, in Utah, there is no collateral order doctrine. [11] As a result, we have not had occasion to focus on the distinction between immunity from suit and immunity from liability under the UGIA.