Court Opinion

ID: 9531459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:11:33.876736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:28.325001
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice.
I concur in the opinion of Justice WORTHEN, adding this comment: It appears to have been the purpose of the constitutional founders to continue the University as a public corporation permanently. Except to the extent stated below, I do not believe that the problems now confronting us require any further refinement upon the contention of the University that it is “a constitutional corporation, the highest form of juristic person known to the law, except the state itself * * 1
It would undoubtedly require a change in the Constitution to abolish the University or to change substantially its nature or function. With respect to its corporate status and existence, it is beyond the power of legislative control. The importance and desirability of a high degree of independence of internal function, and of academic freedom, was unquestionably recognized by the founders. We are not here concerned with any question of interference with the corporate existence or the operation of the institution in any manner that would substantially alter its function as a university. A different question would arise should the legislature deliberately attempt to do so, or act so capriciously or arbitrarily with respect to appropriations or budgetary matters that such would be the effect of its action. Fortunately, we are not faced with any such problem, nor does anything here confronting us give rise to any apprehension that we will be.
Under the present statutes and regulations about which the University is concerned, the question is whether that institution is subject to the general legislative control and budgetary supervision as are other departments of state government. Insofar as this case deals with the latter question, I agree that the University is subject to such control whether it be regarded as a “constitutional corporation” or otherwise. Assuming that it is a constitutional corporation, it does not necessarily follow that it is as completely free *442from legislative control as the University here contends. Its powers are still to he found in, and circumscribed by, the language by which it is created. The nature of the University as a legal entity is rooted in the constitutional language: “The location and establishment by existing laws of the University of Utah, * * * are hereby confirmed, and all rights, immunities, franchises and endowments heretofore granted or conferred, are hereby perpetuated unto said University * * 2 which indeed fixes its right to corporate existence in the Constitution. But its creation is qualified by the phrase “by existing laws.” The existing laws upon which its constitutional origin was based in turn recited that it was a “public corporation and [to] be subject to the laws of Utah, from time to time enacted, relating to its purposes and government,”3 which seems to indicate clearly that it was subject to control by the territorial legislature, and consequently by the state legislature.

. Respondent’s brief, pp. 5 and 37; similar language used by Mich. Court, Board of Regents of University of Michigan v. Auditor General, 167 Mich. 444, 132 N. W. 1037.

. Article X, Section 4, Utah Constitution.

. Sec. 1, Ch. IX, L. of Utah 1892, Now 53-31-2, U.C.A.1953.