Court Opinion

ID: 9620585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:44:18.067779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:34.476847
License: Public Domain

WADE, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent, adhering to my views expressed in Springville Banking Company v. Burton,1 and Fairclough v. Salt Lake County.2 By these decisions, this court has nullified a clear and unambiguous constitutional provision that “[P]rivate property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.” 3 I refuse to worship at the shrine of sovereign immunity where to do so, as in this case, requires a clear violation of our constitution. These decisions are also clearly contrary to the modern trend on sovereign immunity.4

. Springville Banking Co. v. Burton, 10 Utah 2d 100, 349 P.2d 157.

. Fairclough v. Salt Lake County, 10 Utah 2d 417, 354 P.2d 105.

. Section 22, Article I, Constitution of Utah.

. See Justice Wolfe’s dissenting opinion in Bingham v. Board of Education, 118 Utah 582, 223 P.2d 432, where he advocated the complete overruling of sov*69ereign immunity. Also tlie following cases from other states to the same effect: Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District, (Cal.) 359 P.2d 457; Hargrove v. Cocoa Beach, (Fla.) 96 So.2d 130, 60 A.L.R.2d 1193, Anno. Municipal immunity from liability from Torts, pp. 1198-1205; Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302, 18 Ill.2d 11, 163 N.E.2d 89; for comment on this case and legislative history thereafter' see “Municipal Tort Liability in II-linois” page 475, by Robert Z. Hickman, University of Illinois Law Forum, Vol. 1961, Fall No. 3; Williams v. City of Detroit (Mich.) 111 N.W.2d 1.