Court Opinion

ID: 9725126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:31:29.389524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:10.833745
License: Public Domain

Currie, J.
(concurring). I concur fully in the foregoing opinion by Mr. Justice Gordon. However, I deem it necessary to explain the rationale behind our reversal of position on the effect to be accorded legislative action in defeating bills which would have abrogated a rule of law previously established by this court. Heretofore, this court has adhered to the view that rejection by the legislature of a bill of this character constituted a clear expression of legislative intent that the court-made rule was to be retained. Up to now this court has felt that, under our three-department system of government, comity required that courts yield to any determination of policy falling within the competence of the legislature, and that the court’s hands were tied to change a court-made rule which .the legislature had plainly indicated was to be retained.
*43However, we deem that the fallacy in the rationale of our former position is that legislative action defeating a proposed change of a court-made rule is a per. se expression of legislative acquiescence in the rule. If there were any way of determining with certitude that all votes cast to defeat a bill of this character were intended as a legislative in-dorsement on the merits of the correctness of the court-made rule, it would be the duty of this court to yield to this expression of the legislative will. However, there is always present the possibility that some undeterminable number of legislators voted as they did because, inasmuch as the rule sought to be abrogated had been adopted by this court, they deferred to the supposed wisdom of the court, or else determined that the court should correct its own mistakes. Because of this possibility, I have reversed my hitherto held and expressed views, and have come to the conclusion that this court must face up to the responsibility of changing a court-made rule of law, which we deem the interests of justice require be changed, even though the legislature, by positive action short of codification has refused to make the change. The legislature still has the last word and may restore the court-abolished rule if it determines public policy so requires.