Court Opinion

ID: 9852229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:26:52.939306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:24.440071
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring specially):
I concur in affirming the decision that the act is unconstitutional. But, I hope that from the discussion in the main opinion about the differences between state and municipal functions there is no implication that the prohibition of Section 28, Article VI of our Constitution1 would be any less applicable to the state than to a city. I do not see in the language of Section 28 of Article VI any basis for making any differentiation between the operation and control of a fire department as a state affair, or a municipal affair.
Dictionaries all indicate that the term “municipal” has two meanings: (a) it is sometimes used to refer to a city, or other subdivision of government, and the operations thereof; and (b) it has a more general meaning, relating to the public affairs of the state or nation. Under the rule of interpretation, noscitur a sociis, which teaches that terms should be understood in the light of and take character from the associated terms,2 it seems obvious to me that when the framers of our constitution spoke of “. . .to levy taxes, to select a capítol site, or to perform any municipal functions” they were using the term municipal in the broader sense, (b) above, viz., as a public function.
In accordance with what has been said above, I think it is important to point out that the prohibition of that section against delegating “to any special commission, private corporation or association ... to perform any municipal functions” is stated in plain and all inclusive terms; and to my mind, it neither directly or by implication states or suggests that there is any difference if the function is a “municipal affair, or state affair.”
There is a further difficulty with this enactment in that it purports to force arbitration upon the parties and to make it final and binding. This presumes to deprive an aggrieved party of access to the courts, contrary to the assurance of Section 11, Article I, Utah State Constitution. This is especially objectionable when the effect is to surrender the public interest to such a commission, which is impervious to accountability to the public.3

.Footnote 1, main opinion.

. Sutherland Statutory Construction 3rd Ed. 393, 66 C.J.S. p. 608, Heathman v. Giles, 13 Utah 2d 368, 374 P.2d 839.

. See discussion of this problem in Barnhart v. Civil Service Employees Insurance Co., 16 Utah 2d 223, 398 P.2d 873 and authorities therein cited.