Court Opinion

ID: 9628632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:27:22.977076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:09.033102
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(concurring in result) .
I concur in the result, but reserve any opinion as to the legality of the procedure followed by the City in its sale or attempted sale of the park property. It appears that parks are governed by Section 10-8-8, U.C. A.1953, authorizing only that they be vacated. Whether any such statute was considered or followed or was applicable before the sale or attempted sale is not clear.
I do not agree with the main opinion’s statement that “in the recent case of Row-ley v. Milford City that in order to vacate and sell part of its park the City of Milford must pass an ordinance.” That question was not before us in that case, and we simply held that the supplemental answer sought to be filed may have stated a defense to part of the relief prayed for, in the light of facts occurring after the suit was filed showing compliance with the statutes justifying a subsequent sale. (Emphasis ours.)