Court Opinion

ID: 9790665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:57:06.477105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:30.753781
License: Public Domain

SADLER, Justice (dissenting). The majority opinion entirely misconceives the purpose of the injunction by the district court. It was issued to preserve the status quo of the subject matter of the proceeding before it, pending a decision on the merits of the statutory review sought. In mistakenly denying to the district court the power so to do, we rob it of one of its inherent powers, historically exercised by all courts to preserve the subject matter of the causes before them and secure to the victor the fruits of a favorable judgment, whether for money or in the form of other relief. The division of powers clause in our constitution, relied upon by the majority, has nothing whatever to do with the matter. It is simply a question of whether the district court is to be shorn of ancillary powers, inherent in its nature, indispensable to the proper administration of justice in causes coming before it, and historically employed to make certain its judgments shall not prove fruitless. We could with as much reason cut off any other arm of the court as traditionally constituted and lay it at the door of the division of powers clause of our constitution. The majority holding otherwise, I Dissent. McGHEE, J., concurs.