Court Opinion

ID: 9777926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:28:04.409685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:02.535614
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring. Sometimes a decision has to be defined by what it is not. This is not a decision affecting consumers. The nonprofit hospitals do not pretend they want to operate drug stores to reduce the cost of drugs to the public. Indeed, they candidly seek to make profits. This case is not one of discrimination to prevent competition. Through advertising and discount drug stores, there exists a competitive atmosphere from which the public benefits. This is not a decision that prohibits a hospital from performing a function necessary to its existence. The question is purely, can the legislature prohibit a nonprofit hospital, which it has granted special privileges and concessions, from opening an unnecessary, profitable business? Nonprofit corporations are probably misunderstood and, perhaps misnamed. They make profits and, though they don’t have owners or stockholders, an establishment exists to run them. The profits of such a corporation should inure to the benefit of those served by the corporation. But sometimes, these institutions forget the real reason for their charters and simply feed the employees, directors, friends and associates of the corporation rather than devote the profits to services. I point no fingers but merely note that there are no parties to this suit who have totally unselfish motives. There is no genuine question of due process of law or discrimination involved. The only question is: can any conceivable reason be found to justify the legislation? It can.