Opinion ID: 1344604
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: reasonableness of the university's ruling

Text: Finally, appellants argue that the decision of the Residency Appeals Committee denying them resident status was arbitrary and capricious. Both parties agree that our scope of review is whether the University acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Since neither party disputes that proposition, we shall assume that to be the proper scope of review. The Committee's decision was supported by substantial evidence. [8] Appellants first came to Utah in 1972, left in 1973, and returned in 1978, when they again enrolled as students at Utah State University. They applied for resident status in September, 1978, but clearly had not satisfied the one-year residency rule because of their sojourn of six years in Africa, followed by a summer of travel throughout this country. During the summer of 1978, George Frame held a New Jersey driver's license. When they reapplied in April, 1979, they still had not satisfied the one-year residency requirement and did not establish that this state constituted their domicile. The Cache County clerk's office had no record of appellants' having registered to vote or having voted by absentee ballot, as claimed in their application. When out of state, they gave as their permanent address the Department of Wildlife Science. They did not have a Utah driver's license or car registered in their name in this state, and there is no record that they had ever filed Utah State income tax returns. [9] It may be that the Committee could have ruled the other way, as the dissent contends it should have, but the ruling was not arbitrary or capricious. [10] Affirmed. No costs. HALL, C.J., and OAKS, J., concur.