Title: Hansen v. Barlow

State: utah

Issuer: Utah Supreme Court

Document:

456 P.2d 177 (1969) 23 Utah 2d 47 Phil L. HANSEN, Attorney General of the State of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Haven J. BARLOW et al., individually and as members of the 37th Utah State Legislature comprising the Utah Legislative Council, Defendants and Respondents. No. 11230. Supreme Court of Utah. June 20, 1969. Bryce E. Roe and Ollie McCulloch, Special Asst. Attys. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant. Rex J. Hanson and Merlin R. Lybbert, of Hanson & Baldwin, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents. CALLISTER, Justice: The former State Attorney General, Phil L. Hansen, in his official capacity, initiated a declaratory judgment action to determine the constitutionality of the 1967 amendments to Sections 36-4-12 and 36-4-7, U.C.A. 1953, insofar as they provided for payment of a per diem and expenses to the members of the Legislative Council and authorized the Council to employ a staff and fix their salaries. The court below granted a motion to dismiss the action for the reason that the Attorney General had no standing to bring the action and was therefore not a proper party plaintiff. This appeal presents an issue of first impression in this jurisdiction: Does the Attorney General have the right to challenge the constitutionality of a statute enacted by the State Legislature? The answer to this question depends, necessarily, upon the meaning and interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions pertinent thereto. Section 78-33-2, U.C.A. 1953, provides: Article VII, Sec. 1, of our Constitution provides: Article VII, Sec. 18, provides: There is a division of authority as to the power of state attorneys general to bring *178 an action such as this. However, a marked majority are in favor of such a procedure. This view has been expressed by the Montana Supreme Court in State ex rel. Olsen v. Public Service Commission:[1] Wilentz v. Hendrickson[3] is a case specifically in point, which explains the underlying theory to support the power of the attorney general to attack the constitutionality of a statute. The court observed: The court in State ex rel. McKittrick v. Missouri Public Service Commission[5] advanced another theory to sustain the common-law powers of the attorney general. The court stated: There is one other aspect which must be considered. In an earlier line of cases, the courts of the State of Washington appeared to hold that there were no common-law powers conferred upon the attorney general, at least, where the legislature had seen fit to confer the power or duty ordinarily exercised at common law by the *181 attorney general upon another person.[8] However, in State v. Taylor[9] the court cited Article III, Sec. 21, of the Constitution of Washington: "The attorney general shall: (1) Appear for and represent the state before the courts in all cases in which the state is interested; * * *" The court observed that R.C.W. 43.10.030 (1) authorizes the attorney general to bring an action in the courts, if a cognizable common law or statutory cause of action can be stated. Section 67-5-1, U.C.A. 1953, provides: This statute alone, if accorded an interpretation similar to that of the Washington court, would provide an adequate basis for the attorney general to initiate a declaratory judgment action where he believes a statute is in direct contravention to some mandatory provision of the Constitution of Utah.[10] After consideration of our Constitution, statutes and decisions of sister courts, we are of the opinion that it is within the right of the Attorney General, if not his duty, to bring suits to clarify the constitutionality of laws enacted by the Legislature if he deems it appropriate. He is in a much more informed, duty-entrusted, and advantageous position to do so than the individual citizen and taxpayer. Reversed and remanded for consideration upon the merits. No costs awarded. CROCKETT, C.J., and TUCKETT, and ELLETT, JJ., concur. HENRIOD, J., does not participate herein. [1] 129 Mont. 106, 283 P.2d 594, 598 (1955). This case is of particular significance because of the similarity between the constitutions of Montana and Utah. [2] See Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 62, 10 S. Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478, 497 (1890), wherein the court observed: "* * * But it is apparent from the language of the organic act, * * * that it was the intention of congress that the system of common law and equity which generally prevails in this country should be operative in the territory of Utah, except as it might be altered by legislation * * *. In view of these significant provisions, we infer that the general system of common law and equity, as it prevails in this country, is the basis of the laws of the territory of Utah * * *." [3] 133 N.J. Eq. 447, 33 A.2d 366 (1943), affirmed 135 N.J. Eq. 244, 38 A.2d 199 (1944). [4] See Constitution of Utah, Art. I, Sec. 2: "All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require." [5] 352 Mo. 29, 175 S.W.2d 857, 861 (1943). [6] See Sec. 68-3-1, U.C.A. 1953: "The common law of England so far as it is not repugnant to, or in conflict with, the Constitution or laws of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this state, and so far only as it is consistent with and adopted to the natural and physical conditions of this state and the necessities of the people hereof, is hereby adopted, and shall be the rule of decision in all courts of this state." [7] In addition to the cases cited from Mon-66 A.L.R. 1369 (1929); and People ex tana, Delaware, New Jersey, Florida, and Missouri, the following courts have also found that the attorney general has common law powers (this list is by no means inclusive of all jurisdictions which have so held); however, only Illinois holds that the legislature cannot strip him of any of this common law powers and duties as the legal representative of the state: Slezak v. Ousdigian, 260 Minn. 303, 110 N.W.2d 1, 5 (1961); State ex rel. Patterson for Use and Benefit of Adams County v. Warren, 254 Miss. 293, 180 So. 2d 293, 299 (1965); Pierce v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. 2d 759, 37 P.2d 453, 460, 461, 96 A.L.R. 1020 (1934); State ex rel. Fowler v. Moore, 46 Nev. 65, 207 P. 75, 76, 22 A.L.R. 1101 (1922); Gibson v. Kay, 68 Or. 589, 137 P. 864, 866 (1914); Padgett v. Williams, 82 Idaho 28, 348 P.2d 944, 948 (1960); State v. Finch, 128 Kan. 665, 280 P. 910, 913, rel. Barrett v. Finnegan, 378 Ill. 387, 38 N.E.2d 715, 717 (1941). [8] State ex rel. Attorney General v. Seattle Gas & Electric Co., 28 Wash. 488, 68 P. 946, 70 P. 114, 115; State ex rel. Dunbar v. State Board of Equalization, 140 Wash. 433, 249 P. 996, 998. [9] 58 Wash. 2d 252, 362 P.2d 247, 86 A.L.R. 2d 1365 (1961). [10] See Art. I, Sec. 26: "The provisions of the Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise."