Court Opinion

ID: 9560595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:51:55.655623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:02.029032
License: Public Domain

*250ZIMMERMAN, Justice
(concurring):
I concur in the opinion of Justice Stewart. Under the facts presented, no duty was owed to plaintiffs. I understand the court’s proceeding to the duty issue first. However, I would proceed to observe that the district court properly ruled that the Department of Social Services was immune because the claim of harm asserted “arises out of the issuance ... or ... failure ... [to] deny, suspend, or revoke, any permit, license, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization.” Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-10(l)(c) (1989) (amended 1989). That much was settled by Gillman v. Department of Financial Institutions, 782 P.2d 506, 511 (Utah 1989). No purpose is served by not reaffirming that point for the bench and bar, although I concede it might be dictum.