Court Opinion

ID: 9852654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:34:19.703674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:31.717336
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Hill, Justice.
On motion for rehearing Regents makes certain factual assertions to the effect that it does not have the funds to meet, its contractual obligations and argues that availability of funds is a condition precedent to give effect to plaintiff faculty members’ contracts. What Regents overlooks is that these funds were available when these contracts were executed, as pointed out in Division 2 of the opinion holding the contracts valid.
The question of present availability (i.e., under the amended appropriations Act) relates to the showing necessary for plaintiffs to be able to challenge the constitutionality of the amended appropriations Act and to Regents’ argument that it is justified in impairing the obligation of its contracts, as pointed out in Division 3 of the opinion. Until the plaintiffs are in a position to challenge the validity of the amended appropriations Act on the ground that it impairs the obligation of their *774contracts, Regents is not in position to argue that its impairment was justified (i.e., Regents is not in position to enumerate as error the trial court’s ruling that the amended appropriations Act is unconstitutional in that it impairs the obligations of its contracts, and then complain when it prevails on that enumeration).

Motion for rehearing denied.

All the Justices concur, except Jordan and Hall, JJ., who dissent.